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

University of Arizona confirms spherule concentration in lower YDB sediments at famed Clovis site Blackwater Draw


blacwater draw

Blackwater Draw

The presence of a high number of the hollow magnetic microspherules can be used for identification of the LYDB. Although some scientists failed to find any microspherules at all along the LYDB in the BWD-1 site (Surovell et al. 2009), others reported strongly elevated concentrations of the magnetic microspherules here (Firestone et al. 2007; LeCompte et al. 2012). Our observations confirm those made by Firestone et al. (2007) and LeCompte et al. (2012). In spite of the failure to find microspherules along the LYDB, Surovell et al (2009) reported a number of magnetic microspherules in sediments located above the LYDB (not as a discrete microspherule rich layer though). Such a distribution of the microspherules can be explained by redeposition in younger sediments of the microspherules delivered from along the LYDB. It is appropriate to suggest that Surovell et al. (2009) just failed to sample the microspherule-rich layer because it is visually featureless in the BWD-1 site and is very difficult to identify in the field.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 19.39.23

Alex Andronikov


2011 Poster

96 Responses

  1. Now that spherules have been independently( yet again) found at a well known archeology site,(just like at topper, santa rosa island, gainey and meadowcroft) will the ever so vocal still hide their heads in the proverbial cover sands?

  2. George,
    After having read the paper, it seems that one the vocal critics of the YDB event from the archeological world, C.V Haynes, might be coming around.

  3. In this fine article, Andronikov et al think that microspherule deposits were created by ablation from meteorites (mentioned frequently in their paper, meteoroid once).

    They do not mention comets nor recent work on the comet menace by Bill Napier & colleagues.

    The point is that fragile comets, primal condensates loosely held together by gravity from metal cores, decompose into dust, as recently observed in the Deep Impact experiment during impact. This explains comet debris being sprayed as molten droplets over vast parts of the Northern hemisphere.

    That distribution is extremely difficult to model by meteoroid ablation.

  4. It’s great to have another confirmation. Now we just have to sit back and wait for the nay sayers to come creeping out spouting the usual they didn’t do it right or sample it right or ask them if it was ok to test at all. The more of these results the better.

  5. >>…will the ever so vocal still hide their heads in the proverbial cover sands?

    Holders of old scientific paradigms never change their minds.

    They hold them until they are die.

    The new scientific paradigm simply outlasts them as being more relevent with new scientists.

    So it will be with the YDB “cosmic tusk.”

  6. There was more hedging in that paper’s conclusion WRT possible extraterrestrial spherule origin than an English Lord’s manor.

    Still, there was lots hard science testing and alternate theory examination, so it was all good.

  7. Trent – If your first point wasn’t so true, we’d have a better science community. Egos and careers and PRIDE goeth before the fall.

    Just how much hedging DOES an Lord’s manor have?

  8. From the paper: “Concentrations of Ti in the microspherules mainly correlate positively with concentrations of the elements that are characteristic of terrestrial Ti-magnetite and ilmenite, whereas concentrations of Ni correlate positively with concentrations of the elements –
    typical constituents of meteorites.”
    (pg 11)

    The high Ti levels are arged in the paper as ruling out “cosmic origin”. Accepted, as far as it goes.

    90.9% of all meteorites are ordinary chondrites, high in FE and Ni. The tiny amounts of Ni in this study, therefore rule out ordinary chondrites. But it seems to leave carbonaceous chondrites (4.6% of known meteorites) open as a possibility.

    The ratio of ET material compared to ejecta in a normal cratering event is about 1:250, as I calculated one day. Thus, the target materials from an impact have 250 times the chance of being target material and NOT cosmic. 1:250 = 4,000 ppm.

    The 2nd most common meteorites are H Chondrites (34.4%), which are about 8% metal by volume, most of which is Fe. Ni is less than half that, so, say, 2.5% of H chondrites is Ni. 2.5% x 4,000 ppm = 100 ppm. 100 ppm of the ejecta should be Ni.

    L chondrties are the most common meteorites (38.1%), and are about 3% metal by volume, again mostly Fe. Let’s say 1% by volume is Ni. 1 of 4,000 ppm = 40 ppm. 40 ppm of the ejcta should be Ni.

    The Ni levels dound by Andronikov are in the range of 147.7 to 434, averaging about 290 ppm. This is approximately 3 times the L chondrites and 7 times the H chondrites.

    But the Ti found had to come from target materials – if it was an impact. It didn’t come from the ET. Ti in the 6 samples in Table 3 average 138 ppm, about half the Ni levels.

    If the Ti came from target materials, then it is not unreasonable to consider that so did some of the Ni. The Ni is lower than expected in an H or L chondrtite (72.4% of all meteors found), but not terrifically low.

    It seems that a common H or L chondrite impact into an Fe and Ti bearing strata could explain the numbers they see.

    It seems that what they have in these magnetic chondrules is target material that is mostly Fe, but then with a lot of Ti, too. The near total lack of Ni could

    “Elevated concentrations of such “terrestrial” elements as Ta, Nb, and Ti in some hollow microspherules (Table 3) are likely due to contamination by tiny detrital Ti-magnetite grains attached to microspherule surfaces.”

    With 99.75% of the ejecta material being target material, I don’t think that such contamination is necessary as an explanation. The ET had to hit SOMEWHERE.

    Is Ti found in the Great Lakes region?” I asked. Without it we could be farting in a windstorm, right? Well, it turns out, YES:

    From http://lakehuron.ca/index.php?page=true-grit comes this:

    “A handful of scooped sand from a beach along Lake Huron will most likely contain the following minerals in roughly the following proportions:

    “Quartz (87-94%)
    Feldspar (10-18%)
    Magnetite (1-3%)

    “Less than 1%:

    “Garnet (red)
    Calcite (white)
    Ilmenite (brownish-black)
    Hornblende (green, brown, black)
    Epidote (yellowish-green, brownish black)”

    Lake Huron happens to be exactly where Saginaw Bay is. One would have to expect that an impact at Saginaw would have thrown a lot of ilmenite into the atmosphere.

    Ilmenite is one of the specific metals in this study. Magnetite that has a lot of Ti in it is one of the other main metals in this study.

    This all sounds like a really strong connection to me.

  9. Bard, 2016 DV1 was first observed on the 28th Feb (hence its designation). Indeed the table on spaceweather indicates 5 other asteroids discovered in the past 3 or 4 days. You can click on each of the asteroid designations in the spaceweather table and it will take you to the corresponding page in JPL small body database where you can see the first observation gates as well as the orbital parameters of the objects.

  10. Thinking of these impacts as coming from space objects on return orbits (pieces of YD-impact object that had not fallen yet), there is an article summary at iceagenow that researches a large volcano (El Salvador) at 536 A.D. Might this have been released by an impact nearby or across the globe? http://iceagenow.info/

  11. Harvey Nininger was 99 years old (1887-1986), speculated in 1942 that massive impacts could lead to global extinctions. Quoted from “The Fallen Sky” by Christopher Cokinos.

  12. Thanks for the unknown book Hermann, got a hardcover for $4.21 delivered, hope it is good. Looks like ‘they are’ starting to do State sales taxes, great now another thing to do. What is next, inadvertent breaking of international laws?

  13. I got the book yesterday and it looks brand new except the library tags, not even a mar on the pages edges, looks unread and never checked out. I’m starting to wonder again how few may even hold an interest in this most important subject. Has there ever been a correlation with the geneticists human bottle neck of -70Kyrs(?) with a spacefall event?

  14. Bard, the 70k bottle neck is toba volcanic eruption.

    But, research has shown that the eruption had little to no effect on the biome in Africa. And in india the same people are there after the eruption as were there before, even though parts of southern india were covered in several feet of ash.
    Its my opinion that the event only bottle necked southeast Asian populations.
    It is of note that at after the eruption there was a migration of beringian mammoths into western Eurasia.

  15. David –

    WTF? That article is about the work of Christopher Moore and it looks like a rehash of the same STUFF that he pandered 2 years ago.

    His transects of Herndon Bay – Seriously, WHY, with all the single bay rims around does Moore transect the portion of a bay rim that has FOUR ridges? He cherry picked it because it is a reworked rim. Reworked by the aeolian processes he pushes.

    How much mileage is this guy going to rty to get out of that? 45,000 bays and he chooses one that is a Goldilocks on for him(so he thinks).

    “Ongoing geomorphological fieldwork at Herndon Bay in northern Robeson County, North Carolina, has revealed evidence for rapid bay basin scour and landform migration. LiDAR data show a regressive sequence of sand rims that partially backfill the remnant older bay basin, with bay migration of more than 600 meters to the northwest. Similarly, other bays in the region show evidence of significant migration.”

    See? Migration means REWORKED. Reworking has NOTHING to do with initial bay formation.

    “A series of Geoprobe® cores (n=4), basal OSL samples (n=3), and GPR data were collected along transects that cross-cut multiple bay sand rims along the bays southeastern margin. Cores were subsequently analyzed to determine basic lithologies, grain-size statistics of lithologic units (i.e., lithofaces), and magnetic susceptibly. These data, along with GPR data and OSL age estimates are used to reconstruct landform geomorphology and provide a geochronology for bay rim development.”

    He takes REWORKED, MIGRATED “rims” and does OSL dating on them? Are you KIDDING? The “single grain” samples used in the OSL tetsting showed dates of 36.7kya, 29.6kya, and 27.2kya. Those single grains in wind-drifted turbulated sand rpofiles OUTSIDE the bay itself – THESE are what he uses for dating the bay formation?

    Did he get his PhD out of a box of Cracker Jacks?

    No. The man has an agenda, and he cherry picks his samples to fit his pre-conceived notions.

    Really bad science.

    [NOTE: I posted the body of this as a comment at that link.]

  16. Thank you for posting. This is the same guy that wants to teach a “fringe” history class. Maybe he should be teaching a class in “how to ignore scientists”….

  17. Oh, THAT guy? Who wanted to rub non-academics’ noses in “pseudo science”? Mr YouHaveNoRightToThinkThatsOurJob?

    He called me a troll because I disagreed with Moore’s weak work and pointed out specifically why. I am a troll because I have an informed opinion, I guess. He couldn’t believe someone would be interested in such things.

    But if he doesn’t, then why is the idiot posting articles about it?

  18. One other thing… The OSL dates and C14 dates of the Carolina bays are all over the map, from the YDB to like 300,000 years ago, and Davias and Harris, out buddies, have come up with a link to 780,000 years ago and the Asian-Australian Tektite Field.

    I have TRIED to find out exactly what sampling choices have been made. To little avail. Paywalls don’t help. If they are secondary impacts (from ejecta), which seems to be the only real way forward on explaining the CBs, whenever any of you read or hear that “impacts have been ruled out long ago”, just be aware that no one has put forth the secondary hypothesis except Michael Davias, and he seems to get no reaction from anybody in academia.

    The sample locations are tough to even SELECT. Does one do in the rim? If so how far under the surface? To close to the top would likely be contaminated with materials blown in. Too deep and it is dating something long before the bay geomorphology occurred – or not. How knows?

    If one samples outside the bays (which one researcher did), how far outside? Who can even tie such a location to the bay itself? Again, how DEEP constitutes the time of the bay formation?

    If one samples IN a bay, WHERE? On the inside wall of the rim? On the bottom in the center? On the bottom close to the rim? Again, how DEEP?

    From Moore’s 2011 poster (assumed to have been used in a lecture) he has claimed to have found a Clovis artifact INSIDE a rim. See the drawing of the items found within a bay rim at https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/25903024306/in/dateposted-public/

    For the life of me, the image of the artifact is si indistinct I can’t tell anything.

    All the other artifacts are in locations with soil that is C14 dated in the range of about 7,000 cal BP to about 10,986 cal BP. 2,000 years and more after the YDB. But also note the jumble of dates. SOme younger dates are deeper, some older dates shallower. In addition, there is one OSL date right next to an artifact labeled “Kirk Corner-Notched Point” and dated at 10,800 – 10,000 cal BP. The OSL date is 9.2 +/- 1.0 ka. The two appear to be about 2 inches apart at the same exact level. And yet the dates average to be about 1200 years apart.

    The dates seem to argue that the whole thing has been turbulated. There is one soil sample dated 10,986 cal BP that is 100-125 cm ABOVE a soil sample dated to 9,098 cal BP. 1800 years inverted.

    The 5.0 ka OSL sample is the youngest thing in the diagram by 2,000 years, yet it is halfway between two C14 soil samples dated at 7,506 and 7,889 cal BP. Those are 2 meters apart horizontally, with the 5.0 OSL date midway.

    So, some stuff is going on – WENT on, and what does it mean? Was it blown sand as Moore argues? I don’t think how does the sand even get carbon dated? If I don’t miss my mark, it’s pretty pure quartz sand, which is why OSL is a good dating method for it.

    But then where does the carbon come from? (And with TIGHT +/- values.) How does on take a coil sample 4″ TALL and get calibrated C14 dates with +/- 27 years?????? That tall of a vertical sampling should give +/- values of 300-500 years!

    These C14 date are presented with precision and accuracy that seem unrealistic.

    And in the middle is a Clovis point. It’s got the flute. If that is what it IS, then how does a 13,000 ya point get in among artifacts and soil samples so much younger than its age? It’s age is given at 13,000-13,500 cal BP. That is the window of Clovis. The age is give as if C14, but there is no soil sample shown at that location or within a meter and half – and those are 4,000 to 5,500 years later. It is half a meter underground. How did it get there?

    And if it is UNDER the ground, among artifacts and soil samples and OSL samples dated to Natufian times and later, how does anyone put the age of the Carolina bay formation at 30,000 or 45,000 ya? Or Davias/Harris at 780,000 ya?

    This all illustrates the difficulty in nailing the date of bay formation. NOTHING in that diagram speaks to formation of that bay at all. Items are dated and soil is dated, and grains of sand are dated – and all more recent than 13,500 ya. All but the Clovis point are dated at 10,986 ya or younger.

    If, as we thiink, the bays were formed from secondary impacts that MUSHED OUT the bay depressions, it seems consistent to then conclude that the force of the impact was enough to DIMPLE the region, but not enough to EJECT material. The impacts DEFORMED but did not destroy. Thus, materials UNDER the surface, then, should have maintained their locations in a depressed bowl shaped contour. Pushing down on soft clay, for example, does not destroy the clay, only deform it. Items IN the clay would be moved WITH the clay.

    Ass a parting shot, notice that Moore ended the vertical age at 13.1 ka. He stopped right where he might have found more artifacts.

  19. ” The dates seem to argue that the whole thing has been turbulated.”

    characterized by conflict, disorder, or confusion; not controlled or calm.
    “the country’s turbulent 20-year history”
    synonyms: tempestuous, stormy, unstable, unsettled, tumultuous, chaotic; More
    (of air or water) moving unsteadily or violently.
    “the turbulent sea”

    just more proof of movement of water and sand … and not Ice!

    Well that of course would happen if you wash a whole continent of sand and debris over a few thousand giant bowls, and just 3400 years too!
    and Yes we call it turtle island for a reason!

  20. Howdy all –

    Fun paper out of PhysOrg. If these guys are right, it appears that the system of Saturn moons inside the orbit of Titan is dynamically unstable over an extended period of time. Over time, orbits are pumped out of plane. Impacts and destruction ensue. Ring systems and debris fields are formed. Current set of moons and rings may be no older than 66 million years. And if they are that young, this has happened more than once. Most interesting thing to me is the notion that the moon system reforms out of a debris field. Cheers –


  21. One Scientific Rule of thumb:

    When in science someone says, “Such and such might have happened”, it is incumbent upon the reader to RE-STATE the premise in its opposite form.

    Hence, “New research suggests that some of Saturn’s icy moons, as well as its famous rings, might be modern adornments” – this MUST ALSO be re-stated as:

    “New research suggests that some of Saturn’s icy moons, as well as its famous rings, MIGHT NOT BE modern adornments.”

    It really annoys me when scientists go find a friendly science writer who is a whore for such things, and together they pad both their resumes with a speculative article like this. PhysOrg.com does that a LOT – being a doormat for attention-seeking scientists (and by “attention seeking”, I mostly mean “funding seeking”).

    Speculation is not science.

    It’s all computer modeling, which means it is not based on anything except the code they programmed in, which would have their assumptions filling the entire code.

    Another rule of thumb:


    “The straightforward assumption is that they are primordial – as old as the planet itself, which is more than four billion years. However, in 2012, French astronomers found that tidal effects – the gravitational interaction of the inner moons with fluids deep in Saturn’s interior – are causing them to spiral to larger orbital radii comparatively quickly. The implication, given their present positions, is that these moons, and presumably the rings, are recent phenomena.”

    I take exception on two levels, at least.

    1. “”The straightforward assumption is that they are primordial” – This is inaccurately and SLOPPILY stated. NO, it is NOT “straightforward”; it is the general consensus, and those are two very separate things. Such statements are pontifical in nature, giving the impression of pontificating from on high the wisdom of scientists in general and the present scientist(s) in particular. It’s more a priestly sort of statement than on objective science statement. There is nothing straightforward about it at all. It is speculations piled on speculations. While this author might look at it in hindsight and think his vision is 20-20, so did the epicycle scientists think those were straightforward – even though they had needed centuries to derive the epicycles and had had to patch them up more than a MicroSoft Windows OS.

    2. “…in 2012, French astronomers found that tidal effects – the gravitational interaction of the inner moons with fluids deep in Saturn’s interior – are causing them to spiral to larger orbital radii comparatively quickly. The implication, given their present positions, is that these moons, and presumably the rings, are recent phenomena.”

    Caca. I see this as jumping to a conclusion. Just because their orbital radii are increasing NOW does not preclude a sine-curve type of effect that will at some point in the future make the orbital radii get smaller. There are many effects in nature that if we only map the process for a short time will show a n increase, even though mapping at different times will show it decreasing instead of it increasing. A phase-type phenomenon, in other words.

  22. Also DO note the age – 66 million years – in this. The same essential time as the K-T comet and also the Deccan Traps in India.

    It would do us good to consider a possible connection – that perhaps OTHER things were hit in our solar system at that time.

  23. “So the question arises, what caused the recent birth of the inner moons?”

    After they’ve put so much speculation and assumptions in to this, on top of the assumptions unstated but IN the computer code, they take someof the output of the model and treat it as a reality and then ask about the “reality” that just popped out, “How old is it?”

    I dunno – At what time did the model spit out the data?

  24. Are they positing that the moons were NOT created during the planetary nebular period?

    Do I detect rebellion? Based on one computer model’s output?

    If the moons accreted 66 million years ago, why do we not NOW observe accretion other than non-differentiating regolith lying loosely, feather-light, on the surface. How could solid bodied form in such a short time period? Wouldn’t collisions – like the K-T monster and SL-9 – actually obliterate and fragment?

  25. The important thing out of the simulation is that the current array of moons is dynamically unstable. Do not forget that we had Cassini rat racing through the system since July 2004, 12 years. Predicting hundreds of flybys and gravity assists from multiple moons gave precise measurements of the orbital elements of the various moons.

    Yeah, it is a simulation, though an educated one. Unlike climate models, you can run orbits backwards and forwards. It is one of the way we think the orbit of Mercury is dynamically unstable (mostly due to relativistic effects). Looks like running it backwards for the Saturn moon system led them to a point where the system inside Titan was dynamically unstable, a singularity if you will. Sounds like they are trying to wrap their brains around the nature of that singularity and what happens in that system when it became dynamically unstable.

    Looks like debris inside the Roche limit forms rings while debris outside reforms moons by accretion. Most interesting to me is the notion that if this has happened once, it has happened multiple times and will again.

    As to your last, the reason we see little substantial accretion among the current ring plane is that they mostly reside inside the Roche limit of 1.8 – 2.5 planetary radius for Saturn. Most everything outside that limit has reformed moons. Tidal forces inside that radius keep large things from accreting. Cheers –

  26. “…while debris outside reforms moons by accretion.”

    I still argue that when ONE km/s is 2200 ft/sec, the speed of many bullets, the delta-V between two colliding bodies is DEstructive, not CONstructive. And 1 km/s is the LOW end of collision delta-Vs. Anything faster is that much MORE destructive.

    And they don’t explain how solid rocks can form in space. Every crater excavates about 200 times the mass of the impactor, and collisions cannot be looked at any differently than impactors. They can’t say that ET impacts is destructive on planets but they are constructive with asteroids. What kind of double-think is THAT?

    200X ejecta is a negative accretion result. How does a body GAIN SOLID MASS when 199/200 of each impact goes out into space?

    None of it makes sense.

    If they show me a bullet that ADDS mass instead of obliterating, I will consider agreeing.

    They carry over the accretion mentality because they put it into the planetary nebula model, but the physics didn’t change between X billion years ago and now. It’s still Newtonian. It was Newtonian then and still is.

    Thus, if it is destructive NOW – which it most certainly IS – then it was destructive then. And out the window goes the planetary nebula theory.

    And if this overall has that as any part of it, then the overall has a big hole in it.

  27. We just got another confirmation of massive planetary bombardment in our life time.


    Something just smashed into Jupiter
    29 MAR 2016

    Much snippage —

    Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy reports that the asteroid or comet probably only measured a few hundred feet in diameter. However, when it comes to celestial collisions, the size of the attacker doesn’t matter as much as the mass of what it’s hitting. Plait explains:

    “On average (and ignoring orbital velocity), an object will hit Jupiter with roughly five times the velocity it hits Earth, so the impact energy is 25 times as high. The asteroid that burned up over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 was 19 metres across, and it exploded with the energy of 500,000 tons [454,000 tonnes] of TNT. Now multiply that by 25, and you can see how it doesn’t take all that big a rock to hit Jupiter for us to be able to see it from Earth.

    At these huge speeds, hitting the atmosphere is like slamming into a wall. A lot of people get understandably confused how an asteroid can explode due to air, but the pressures involved as it rams through the atmosphere at these speeds are ridiculously huge.”

    Jupiter is a resilient gas giant. In fact, it’s probably used to getting hit by passing asteroids at this point. The planet gets hit by something big enough to see from Earth about once a year – we’re just noticing it more now because our tech is evolving.

  28. Cool.

    That paragraph about hitting a wall of atmosphere is a good one.

    (This is redundant with comments from the past, but…) The speed of the body compresses the air so much that the air heats up SO MUCH and turns around and heats up the front of the object. That melts the front surface of the object but also puts TREMENDOUS stresses on the object. The turbulence and pressure at the face blows the melted slag off, while simultaneously vaporizing the melt with the huge heat energy being produced. The “fire” we see is this vaporization going on. The whole process removes mass from the front face of the object, so much so that by the time the Chelyabinsk object flared and broke up, it had lost about 90% of its total mass.

    The OTHER aspect of that is this: All that heat energy is transformed kinetic energy, meaning that the object is being BRAKED by the atmosphere, even though it is not obvious in any videos. It takes a decent proportion of its flight thru the atmosphere, though, to begin actually slowing down. Calculations about Chelyabinsk determined that the velocity remained like 18.3 km/s for maybe 1/4 of its time in the atmosphere. So objects with steep entry angles are not only going to make it through more readily, but would hit the surface at higher velocities – both not good for us.

    NOW, take that and do it in an even denser atmosphere and at higher speeds, and it’s easy to see that objects hitting Jupiter’s atmosphere are going to airburst way sooner and higher up. The SL9 fragments never made it to the surface. Maybe none ever do. They’d have to be damned big to make it through to the ground (whatever passes for the ground on gaseous Jupiter).

    This impact – how many does this make since SL9? Three? In 22 years? That is a LOT of impacts.

    That should start to further reduce the “average years between impacts on Earth”, as people translate that frequency to OUR situation.

  29. The thing that jumped out for me was the article linked to by the one I posted made the observation that one such impact a year is being observed at Jupiter.

    See Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy —


    Jupiter gets hit a lot. We’ve seen impacts like this before, many times in fact! The most famous is the string of impacts from the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994, which hammered the planet over and again as the comet, broken into a dozen separate pieces by Jupiter’s gravity, slammed into the planet and exploded. In 2009 something relatively big hit the planet (and Hubble caught the aftermath). It was hit again in June 2010 (with a cool color photo this time), and then again in August 2010. A repeat performance was held in September 2012.

    Looking over these observations, it seems that on average Jupiter gets hit by something big enough to see from Earth about once per year. Mind you, we miss ones that happen on the far side of the planet, or when Jupiter is too close to the Sun to be observed.

    I’ll note that Jupiter has always been getting hit, but the uptick in detections is because our technology is getting better and less expensive. You don’t need a zillion dollar observatory to catch something like this; an off-the-shelf telescope and video camera can do the trick. I’m not saying it’s easy; astrophotography still takes skill and patience.

  30. Trent…

    “Mind you, we miss ones that happen on the far side of the planet, or when Jupiter is too close to the Sun to be observed.” SL9’s fragments left remnant effects in the upper atmosphere for a few revolutions. Maybe – I don’t know – the ones on the far side would show when the impact site swings around in view.

    You reminded me:

    Back 8-10 years ago I caught a video of what appeared to be a small comet hitting the SUN. The one Sun view that is bluish. THAT was incredible, because when it hit the Sun the whole Sun flared. You could see the object heading in and then WHAM.

    However often Jupiter gets hit, the Sun has to have more.

    In time enough hits will be noted and then better and better frequency numbers should be possible for US – worked in with what we see here. It takes time.

    But at about one hit per year for Jupiter, maybe not so much time. I ASSUME they can extrapolate Earth’s based on Jupiter’s.

  31. so is dna evidence is coming soon ?

    so they • Change to open, scattered settlements on plains/ valleys instead of elevated sites. ( so you would do that if the water levels( wells) dropped and not raised like theorized ) this is proving a sea age before this age actually.

    from http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6773-The-Copper-bronze-Age-transition-in-Iberia-Genetic-amp-demographic-implicaitons

    seems the dna didn’t come from the east so far..
    so we wait for their magic time machines and crystal balls and tea leaves and such to tell us what to think about it .

  32. so is dna evidence coming soon ?

    so they • Change to open, scattered settlements on plains/ valleys instead of elevated sites. ( so you would do that if the water levels( wells) dropped and not raised like theorized ) this is proving a sea age before this age actually.

    from http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6773-The-Copper-bronze-Age-transition-in-Iberia-Genetic-amp-demographic-implicaitons

    seems the dna didn’t come from the east so far..
    so we wait for their magic time machines and crystal balls and tea leaves and such to tell us what to think about it .

  33. It’s a good thing Jupiter and Saturn are getting slapped around so much, It means we are not. It also shows that we’ve probably been hit way more than mainstream science wants to admit.

  34. Regards this —

    However often Jupiter gets hit, the Sun has to have more.

    In time enough hits will be noted and then better and better frequency numbers should be possible for US – worked in with what we see here. It takes time.

    But at about one hit per year for Jupiter, maybe not so much time. I ASSUME they can extrapolate Earth’s based on Jupiter’s.

    The issue has always been evidence.

    Lots of cheap digital astronomy instruments and lots of dedicated amateurs sharing their data means we get a much more complete census of extra-earth impacts to create a realist impact probability assessment for Earth.

    IMO, This is when the geologial uniformist meme dies.

    We are now in the age where the data will drown the old paradigm.

  35. Trent –

    “The issue has always been evidence.”

    As is true in all sciences. I see each science as needing a TON of observation in the formative stage. Trying to make sense of things befire enough observations are made just means a bunch of speculative premature guesses. Witness global warming and the Carolina bays, as well as dark matter and dark energy and the Oort cloud and the planetary nebula… LOL – You KNEW I would get that in, didn’t you? ROFL

    But seriously, everyone wants to be the one who solved a scientific puzzle, but in that early stage it really is necessary to simply make the observations, make the measurements, log the data, and hope that someday there will be enough for someone to put it all together. Some of Thomas Kuhn’s work was about this chaotic period. He discusses the early days of electricity in particular.

  36. Trent –

    I HOPE you are right. But 99.9999% of the geologists are working within the uniformitarian meme, and they can’t see the forest for the trees.

  37. BTW, I ran across Ed Grondine on another comment thread a few days ago. Within half a sentence he was insulting me.

    A nice guy.

    To be far away from.

    He creates enemies in his head and then fights a war there, with or without the enemy taking part.

  38. I disagree with he following —

    >>But 99.9999% of the geologists are working within the uniformitarian meme, and they can’t see the forest for the trees.

    If you said “academic geologists” you would be correct.

    If a working geologists found oil bearing rock formations might be CAUSED BY big asteroid impact structures.

    We would see the academic geologists uniformitarian meme quite literally plowed under in the rush to find them.

  39. That is an interesting

    Thomas Gold had a varied career. One thing he got credit for and then was aced on was abiogenic oil, in his book “The Deep, Hot Biosphere”. That is the idea that oil does NOT come from decayed vegetation that sat for millions of years and was compressed into petroleum. Gold reasoned that the oil instead developed much farther down and is the result of the temps and pressures acting on NON-biological carbon. THAT then oozes up and fills cavities nearer the surface or even oozes out onto the surface as pitch or other hydrocarbons. He asserted that it often flows up through layers with decayed vegetation, so when that vegetation is found in oil, it is not because it is the origin of the oil, but was just picked up in passing. Two Russians behind the Iron Curtain had had the same idea and researched it about a decade or two before Gold, so his credit was rescinded.

    The MAIN issue became the question, “Is Oil Really a non-renewable resource?” It had been known for a long time that some oil reserves replenish themselves at least to some extent after being abandoned. The orthodoxy said it was leakage from the sides. The abiogenic theory argues that it comes from below. To me, the secondary question is, “Does it replenish fast enough so that we can use a drill site over and over?” If it is too slow it may not help, even if true.

    …Getting to your comment, Trent, one of the things he did was to predict that oil would be found directly under an impact structure in Scandinavia. They drilled, and, by god, they found oil. If I can, I will try to find out the name. It shouldn’t be too hard.

    …And, yeah, I meant academic geologists. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire on that.

    Orthodoxy is fine – as long as it doesn’t get in the way of new discoveries and new processes and better understandings of phenomena. I would guess an open orthodoxy would be just fine with me – It is NECESSARY to have solid scientific realities to work with, but it is also necessary to understand that we don’t know everything and that some surprises will crop up from time to time that blow part(s) of an orthodoxy apart and clear the decks for a new direction in thinking.

  40. Also, it WAS a field geologists who found the Chixculub crater. To my recollection no Comet/Meteor Rush of 1990 ensued.

    But Chixculub IS right near where a large part of the Mexican oil rigs in the Gulf are. A connection? If so, then someone ought to be drilling around Sudbury, Ontario…

  41. Steve G,

    This —

    >>The MAIN issue became the question,
    >>“Is Oil Really a non-renewable resource?”

    Was never ever true.

    And as for the following —

    >> To my recollection no Comet/Meteor Rush of 1990 ensued.

    It’s Oil Cost Concept 101 for both.

    The more oil costs, the higher the extraction costs can be. The oil price will go up, but we will never run out of oil. At a high enough price and some lead time the USA can be OPEC-independent.

    There is a tremendous amount of oil in the Bakken oil shale.

    There is even more in the in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale.

    Those will play out long before we get back to the Chixculub crater.

    Back in the early 2000’s fracers used to drill a long lateral and put just a few fracs in it.

    In 2010 wells had 35 fracs, used 5 million gallons of water (there are a little over 325,000 gallons of water in an acre foot, which is the volume necessary to cover an acre in one foot of water), and also used a little over 4 million pounds of sand.

    Environmental damage? None.

    Noise? During those fracs it’s loud, like jet engines.

    In 2014 there are many more than 35 fracs per well (how many was very proprietary).

    Now with the Saudi’s cutting their nose off to spite their face, oil prices are down to sub-$40 a barrel.

    This won’t last.

    In the mean time Texas frackers are pumping oil to cover operating costs with a “Frack-log” of drilled but unfracked wells waiting for the Saudi’s to crack and go for higher prices.

  42. @ Jim Coyle, It’s a good thing Jupiter and Saturn are getting slapped around so much, It means we are not.

    True . .!!

    This leads to the question, what might be the radius of Jupiter’s capture sphere (ignoring dynamics)? An object at rest between the Sun and planet J will fall into J if it is inside the capture sphere. Radius = 24,052,000 km = 172 Jupiter diameters = 1/32 AU.

  43. Correction: Sorry, this was supposed to say the radius of the capture sphere = 1/32 of Jupiter’s semi-major orbital axis, not AU.

    However, we also may state the radius as 1/6.22 AU.

  44. Trent –

    This all happened when I worked in R&D. Back in 1989. We had several PhDs in metallurgy. At lunch one day my boss talked about his discussions with the metallurgy guys. They told him exactly what was going to happen.

    They said that the science journalists would go to PHYSICISTS. They told him that was exactly the wrong people to go to. They told him that thee different isotopes of palladium acted differently, and if people trying to replicate the work of Pons and Fleschmann chose “palladium” as if all palladium is the same, some would be able to replicate the P&F work and some wouldn’t. The metallurgists said that all metallurgists are aware of this difference, but physicists don’t know sheit about it. So the ignorant physicists – literally “not knowing” – that used the WRONG palladium would jump to the conclusion that Pons and Fleischmann were mistaken.

    To flesh out what they were saying, they talked about a phenomenon called “hydrogen in metals”. This is a VERY peculiar phenomenon. Hydrogen in metals had been studied for MANY years. It seems that hydrogen has this capability of getting into the lattice structure of the crystalline metals and keep getting more and more and more and more hydrogen. Nobody understood it fully then and I think that no one understands it fully now.

    SOME ISOTOPES of palladium happen to really be susceptible to this hydrogen in metals phenomenon, such that so much hydrogen goes into the lattice of the metal structure that the internal pressure gets HUGE. But only SOME isotopes, not all.

    We had a HUGE industrial library there and I was able to check out some books on hydrogen in metals. In my reading I ran across a study of hydrogen in palladium in particular. In that study they found out that the internal pressure gets as high as 10 million psi.

    10 million psi happens to be the target pressure that fusion physicists aim for in fusion reactors. Yeah, the fusion reactors that don’t work.

    Bu there inside palladium, hydrogen naturally reaches that pressure.

    This is a very true story.

    I’ve known for 27 years that Pons and Fleischmann were right and did NOT screw up.

    Industrial scientists do NOT go around doing silly work. Those metallurgists? Smart as any scientists I’ve ever met and they know their stuff. And EVERYTHING they know is true in the real world.

  45. There were a LOT of books in that library on hydrogen in metals.

    When I got to the 10 million psi thing, I left it at that. I knew that if the internal lattice pressure got to 10 million, fusion was taking place. On the microscopic level.

  46. Steve Garcia,

    You missed the best part of the article at the link —

    “Prof. Price tells the story of a remarkable demonstration just concluded in Florida where a megawatt of cold fusion power has been used in an industrial plant for more than 1 year!

    Not only have the physicists been proved wrong theoretically, they have just had their field’s professional reputation destroyed.

  47. Very good. Metallurgists forever!

    Actuall, I had not expected anyone to be able to size up the effect to industrial levels (it seemed too feeble, too low of energy density). I am glad to be wrong!

    Very cool.

    My laptop crashed yesterday, and I am doing this on my mew, first, smart phone. I may be less at contributing, but I will try…

  48. Trent… Okay. Finished the whole article now. Nothing in conflict with what ‘my’ metallurgists described. That seems a good thing to me.

    I am not surprised that they are floundering in trying to explain what is really going on. They may NEVER be able to get inside the lattice to see what is going on.

    They did mention “cracks in metals”, if you notice. THAT is soecifically why so many metallurgists study ‘hydrogen in metals’ – the hydrogen causes ’embrittlement’, which makes the metals fragile instead of strong. Metals are strong specifically (and “complicatedly”) because of the bonds within the crystalline lattices. Hydrogen somehow messes with the bonds and results in weak shear planes in microscopic zones. What is going on is the subject of all the eesearch. This is important in industrial applications, because designs using metals totally need to be able to depend on metals being as strong as published figures show. Otherwise designs fail, equipment fails, and mechanical design stands on uncertain feet.

    So, this ‘Rydberg material’ is not explained or really even described. Not in English, anyway. The graphic – maybe take that with a grain of salt for the moment, since they are floundering with their understanding. I can see tie-ins with ‘my’ metallurgists’ thinking (as I recall and understand), but it seems to not be quite right.

    BTW, all the metallurists in our R&D facility were in their 60s, so by now they are in their upper 80s by now, if they are even alive. The point ther being how open they were to a new ‘effect’, whereas so many academics are ossified in their thinking long before their 60s. I think that dealing with the real world affords industrial R&D scientists to know that there are surprises out there.

    As to the assertion about the 1 Mw plant, it did not say where and what company (unless I missed that). If not, that raises my own inner skeptic up a couple of notches. While I’ve always wanted this all to work out and become a really solid technology someday, I also do not want any more bad press and especially no more ridicule. Better to have fans pushing for super solid proofs than to go blithely along and get laughed at again in public.

    Time now to cogitate on it. . .

  49. Steve G.

    It looks real.

    Rough order performance for the E-Cat Cold fusion plant is 200 KW in to activate the generators that gets 1.2 to 1.5 MW out for a net of 1 MW output at a 1/100th the cost of coal electrical power generation.

    A lot has to be ironed out by engineers — we have no idea of the nuclear waste disposal problems for example — but we are looking at a 20-year transition of 70% of the fossil fuel market to Cold fusion electrical plant.

    This is an industrial infrastructure change to rival that of going from stream powered industrial and propulsion plants to electrical ones.



    October 16, 2014

    Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline

    “Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or ‘far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume’.”

    The researchers couched their announcement and analysis with a lot of “weasel words”, probably bearing in mind the debunking of a previous “cold fusion” claim a few years ago.

    See also more recent — http://ecat.com/

    Ah, as usual it’s not quite what I remembered, but here it is:

    MIAMI, April 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Leonardo Corporation announced today that on March 29, 2016, Leonardo Corporation received independent third party validation of the overwhelmingly positive results of a nearly yearlong test of Leonardo’s 1MW Energy Catalyzer (“E-Cat”). According to the inventor, Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat generates a low energy nuclear reaction (“LENR”) which produces excess heat energy at a cost substantially below more traditional energy sources. According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the same period. According to Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation considers the results of the third party test to be “an overwhelming success” and that “the world is one step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and efficient energy source.”

    And finally see this for background —

    This is Google’s cache of https://storiesbywilliams.com/2013/12/09/the-future-of-fusion-1-mw-cold-fusion-plant-now-available/.

    December 9, 2013 760 Words
    The Future of Fusion: 1-MW Cold Fusion Plant Now Available!

    fusion_energyIt’s actually here: the world’s first fusion power plant that is capable of generated a single megawatt of power and is available for pre-order. It’s known as the E-Cat 1MW Plant, which comes in a standard shipping container and uses low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) – a process, often known as cold fusion, that fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper – to produce energy 100,000 times more efficiently than combustion.

    E-Cat, or Energy Catalyzer, is a technology (and company of the same name) developed by Andrea Rossi – an Italian scientist who claims he’s finally harnessed cold fusion. For just $1.5 million, people can pre-order an E-Cat and expect delivery by early 2014. With this news, many are wondering if the age of cold fusion, where clean, abundant energy is readily available, is finally upon us.

    E.Cat1 Cold fusion, as the name implies, is like normal fusion, but instead of producing fast neutrons and ionizing radiation that decimates everything in its path, cold fusion’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) produce very slow, safe neutrons. Where normal fusion requires massive, expensive containment systems, it sounds like E-Cat’s cold fusion can be safely contained inside a simple, pressurized vessel.

    And while normal fusion power is generated by fusing hydrogen atoms, cold fusion fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper, by way of some kind of special catalyst. Despite the rudimentary setup, though, cold fusion still has the massive power and energy density intrinsic to atomic fusion. In short, it produces far more energy than conventional chemical reactions – such as burning fossil fuels. The only challenge is, the massive amounts of power that are usually required to initiate the reaction.
    e.cat2According to E-Cat, each of its cold fusion reactors measures 20x20x1 centimeters (7.8×7.8×0.39 inches) and you stack these individual reactors together in parallel to create a thermal plant. The E-Cat 1MW Plant consists of 106 of these units rammed into a standard shipping container. Based on the specs provided by Rossi, the fuel costs works out to be $1 per megawatt-hour, which is utterly insane. Coal power is around $100 per megawatt-hour.

    But before anyone gets too excited about the commercialization of cold fusion, it should be noted that Rossi is still being incredibly opaque about how his cold fusion tech actually works. The data sheet for the 1MW Plant shares one interesting tidbit: Despite producing 1MW of power, the plant requires a constant 200 kilowatts of input power — presumably to sustain the reaction.
    E.Cat5_-1030x858The spec sheet also says that the fuel (specially treated nickel and hydrogen gas) needs to be recharged every two years. One of the science community’ biggest sticking points about Rossi’s cold fusion devices is that he hasn’t proven that his LENR is self-sustaining. Despite a huge amount of output energy, the device still needs to be connected to the mains.

    What’s more, due to a lack of published papers, and thus peer review, and a dearth of protective patents, the scientific community in general remains very wary of Rossi’s claims. And of course, we should all remember that this is not the first time that researchers have proclaimed victory in the race to make cold fusion happen. Whenever the words “cold fusion” are raised in conjunction, the case of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment immediately springs to mind.

    NASA_coldfusionFor those who remember, this case involved an experiment made in 1989 where two researchers claimed to have achieved cold fusion using palladium rods and heavy water. Initially, the scientific community treated the news with exciteent and interest, but after numerous labs were unable to reproduce their experiment, and a number of false positives were reported, their claims were officially debunked and they relocated their lab to avoid any further controversy.

    At the same time, however, one must remember that some significant changes have happened in the past three decades. For one, NASA’s LENR facility has been working on producing cold fusion reactions for some time using an oscillating nickel lattice and hydrogen atoms. Then there was the recent milestone produced by the National Ignition Facility in California, which produced the first fusion reaction using lasers that produced more energy than it required.
    Who’s to say if this is the real deal? All that is known is that between this most recent claim, and ongoing experiments conducted by NASA and other research organizations to make LENR cold fusion happen, a revolution in clean energy is set to happen, and will most likely happen within our lifetimes.

    Addendum: Just been informed by WordPress that this is my 1400th post! Woot-woot!
    Sources: extremetech.com, ecat.com

  50. Given that shipborne electrical power generation is THE limiting factor on the Navy’s projected medium-tern future beam energy weapons, and the reported cargo container size of this 1 MW cold fusion generator, I find it hard to believe that DARPA is not funding some of this research. This unit would make it very easy to retrofit existing warships with the power supply for such beam weapons.

    This sort of retrofit issue first arose, in the modern era, in the early dreadnought period more than 100 years ago. Dreadnought fire control accuracy rose so fast in the ten-year period from launching of the first dreadnought in 1906 to Jutland in 1916 that ships were effectively obsolete 7-8 years after commissioning.

    Refitting dreadnoughts with newer fire control systems was not possible due to the much higher electric power demands of such systems and the paucity of electric power on older dreadnoughts. Major rebuilding of older ships with new electric power cable runs piercing bulkheads and armor would have been required, such that investment in newer ships was more cost-effective.

    The US Navy is very aware of this issue concerning its projected medium-term future beam weapons, and has publicly been looking for a solution. I am very skeptical of this cold fusion development.

  51. Tom,

    DARPA would not be the place to look for US Navy cold fusion money.

    NB: Currently “Black world” military procurement dollars now outnumber “White world” procurement in the US Defense budget.

  52. Tom, Trent,

    Fusion is a lot further along than most anyone is willing to admit, because it’s gone black.
    There are several lines of evidence that lead me to that conclusion.
    First Lockheed’s skunk works anounced that they had made a break through in fusion and openly talked about something they are doing. The Skunk works never talks about what they do. Secondly if you watch Lockheeds little promo vid about the fusion projec, very closely, in one photo of the lab you can see a device on the table that sure looks a lot like the Navy’s polywell prototype.
    The Navy had a program running out of San Diego, to build a polywell reactor. They built 2 prototype vessels before the project was defunded,and essentially vanished in 2009.
    And I think the second prototype is the apparatus in the vid.
    And shortly before Lockheed made its announcement, Boeing’s x37b just came back from a nearly two year secret mission.
    A month later Boeing files for a patent on a fusion rocket drive.
    There is talk that direct heat to electricity conversion has been done.
    Lockheed says their system will be 500Mw in the footprint of a large jet engine.
    I believe that the x37 was carrying the first working prototype, now they are working on scaling it up.
    What better place to test something like that, than space.

  53. >>Lockheed says their system will be 500Mw in the footprint of a large jet engine.

    That certainly puts the cats among the pigeons.

    Energy densities that high with direct heat to electricity conversion means

    1) Cold Fusion and

    2) We are into Science fiction made fact, AKA Imperial Star Destroyer class energy beams.

    My children may well see the slopes of Olympus Mons with their own eyes in 50 years time.

  54. Trent, I would quibble with the “1/100th the cost of coal”. Once overunity is reached, the subsequent input should come free, meaning no cost. Zero divided by coal costs would be 0/100th.

  55. There have been a couple of other notable developments in the last couple of years. A private firm in LA has achieved ignition and got out more heat than they put in, in lab sized device. Another group has reported that anuetronic fusion seems to be easier to achieve in smaller devices.
    The British project has achieved ignition as well.
    But ignition seems to be easy, it’s containment that is the killer, and that’s where some of the smaller programs seem to be getting a leg up on the larger national programs, like the national ignition facility.
    Several teams, including L/M, have found that high current electrical fields will contain the plasma a little easier than high intensity magnetic fields will.

    Given that Boeing and Lockheed/Martin have been collaborating a great deal lately, the writing on the wall, patents and what not, seems to show they are on to something.

    When you mention “star destroyer”
    class energy beams, we might already be there, on a limited scale.
    There was a series of events at Dugway Proving Grounds thru the mid 2000’s, that some online motorcycle acquaintances witnessed.
    In the middle of the night a beam or column of light, would eminate from the heart of the PG and would pierce the clouds and light up the night sky. Witnesses reported effects that are attributable exposure to gamma rays and xrays, and that’s from 20 miles away, and shielded by a mountain range.

  56. The fact that the unit needs to be connected to the mains and ndoes not have some of its output routed back is very troubling for me. If this is truly over unity, this should be a prominent selling point – to disconnect from the grid altogother. Whatever this Rossi guy has, itcannot be true overunity as I know it. Something else is going on.

    I don’t care what the numbers say, keeping energy coming in from the grid sends up big red flags in my mind. No true over unity device would need that.

  57. The direct conversion of heat to electricity seems common to both the E-Cart Cold fusion and the L-M hot fusion projects.

    If that facet is separable from either fusion, we have a industrial revolution right there if the heat-to-electricity conversion efficiency factor is over 42 percent.

    Wild A** guess — This may be where the need for E-Cart’s outside power comes from.

  58. I agree with Steve. This cold fusion claim has “The dog did not bark in the night” issues.

    Cevin’s comment about direct conversion of heat to electricity has its own possibilities though. That means the fuel cost of coal-fired plants would be reduced by much more than half. Given that natural gas-fired plants tend to be combined cycle with fuel effciency in the 50-60% range, compared to 33% for coal and oil fueled plants, coal as an energy source would suddenly be price-competitive again.

    Plus the cost of generating electricity of fossil-fuel plants in general, and the pollution created by coal-fired ones, would decrease dramatically.

  59. I am not surprised Rossi is having the problems he is having. I ran across his E-Cat claims maybe 3 or 4 years ago. Maybe more.

    He struck me as a Tesla wannabe, from his claims and showmanship.

    Each specific cold fusion tech stands or falls on its own success or failure, just as all science/tech is tested for falsification every time it is used. Some process or principle either works or it doesn’t. Once it is shown to work reliably, it’s turned over to engineers and product designers, and a product line is born, marketed, and sold.

    As an example, the LED lamps currently overtaking fluorescent bulbs. 11 or so years ago, this was an accidental discovery. Today I can buy them in the center of Mexico that screw right into regular lamp bulb sockets. They work or they don’t. They do. Solid science FACT, even if the discovery was serendipitous.

    The test is to screw them in and turn on the switch. Do they light up? Yes or no.

    There is a simple test for cold fusion: Does the thing work when you turn it on?

    That is very true for thorium LFTR reactors. All the documentation and history of the reactor at Oak Ridge back in the 1960s exist. The reactor was so unique that they would turn it off on Fridays and switch it back on, on Monday mornings. A toaster simple appliance, in a way.

    My misgivings about cold fusion thus far is that I still have yet to hear that anyone has consulted any metallurgists about the isotope sensitivity of the effect. No one has checked to see if different isotopes give different results.

    An analogy would be heavy water in nuclear research. No one questions that regular water and heavy water give vastly different results. If my metallurgists were right, then all of the reliability problem comes from exactly what my metallurgists predicted: Some would use the wrong isotopes and get nothing, while others would accidentally use the rihht isotope and get results. The offshoot is that both sides think the other side are idiots.

    Here we are nearly 30 years later, and n9 progress has been made.


  60. A re-Clovis site was found in Florida.

    See link and summary below.


    Pre-Clovis civilization in Florida; settlement 1,500 years earlier than previously believed

    Date: May 13, 2016

    Source: Florida State University

    Summary: The discovery of stone tools alongside mastodon bones in a Florida river shows that humans settled the southeastern United States as much as 1,500 years earlier than scientists previously believed, according to a new research. This site on the Aucilla River — about 45 minutes from Tallahassee — is now the oldest known site of human life in the southeastern United States. It dates back 14,550 years.

  61. I find this bit on the Florida pre-Clovis site interesting.

    So much for the mega-fauna over kill theory.


    May 13, 2016

    Pre-Clovis Find in Florida

    Radiocarbon dating at the Page-Ladson sinkhole site in Florida has shown that ancient tools, including a knife, alongside extinct animal bones were Pre-Clovis, dated to 14,550 years ago. They found a mastodon tusk with cut marks made by humans using stone tools. This proves that these extinct mastodons were not wiped out by human hunters as quickly as believed, but lived alongside of them for 2000 years. The artifact dating, stratigraphy dating and other scientific dating is unequivocal for Pre-Clovis. 71 samples of wood all matched at being 14,500 years old and they were found in the dated stratigraphy layers as matching.

    The Daily Mail has good photos with the story;

    The LA Times includes a video with the story;

    Mike Ruggeri’s Pre-Clovis and Clovis World

    Mike Ruggeri’s Pre-Clovis and Clovis World Magazine

  62. Hey trent,
    The old vero man site is a fascinating site.
    Im certain there will eb even older finds there.
    I’ve got some issues with how this has been reported.
    How can they possibly say, “oldest known site of human life in the southeastern United States. It dates back 14,550 years.”, when Topper in South Carolina predates it by a min. of 1.5k years and a likely by more than 6.5 k years.
    And all the hoopla on how this find will ” re-write the history of the peopleing of the americas”
    It will do nothing of the thing, since there is plenty of evidence for people in the new world, both north and south america, going back at least 50k years.

  63. CevinQ,

    More evidence of humans before Clovis is useful, whatever the hype.

  64. CevinQ –

    That is why people who really are interested in such things can’t just take popular science articles as their only sources of science news. The author of this obviously did not do due diligence before writing that the Florida site was the oldest in the SE. Now, did he pluck that out of his (deficient) memory? Or did the paper’s researcher lie to him about that? I can’t imagine that anyone researching pre-Clovis in the SE could possibly not know about Topper, LONG AGO.

    Of course – LOL – the author(s) may not think of S Carolina as SE USA. In which case he/they are too sloppy to have knowledgeable people accept their work in the future. Anyone who doesn’t know that SC is in the SE USA – how much would YOU trust what they say? I’d start with skepticism.

    This KIND of error is part of my own overall general skepticism. I’ve seen so many glaring misstatements and misrepresentations and cherry picking that in each paper or article, I kind of am mentally challenging every sentence, comparing to what I’ve learned elsewhere. If there is ONE conflict with past information, they get a more severe vetting from that point on.

  65. Trent –

    Yes, and the more Clovis and pre-Clovis in the SE are reported, people can begin to understand that the main areas of human habitation in the Americas was in fertile places, not in deserts like Blackwater Draw.

    It has been odd as hell that damn near everywhere early people are found in the Old World, the sites are along waterways and shores, but in the USA somehow people have been seen to have preferred hunting out in the Great Plains (also known as the Great American Desert in the past) or deserts. It is as if arkies think people got instantly dumber once the hit America. I know, given some of our politics on recent years, that is an easy bridge to cross, but it’s at least a bit illogical.

  66. wow I just looked at that and wow such pretty and sterile moon dirt that was left there in that spot, I had expected that the moon dirt would have been mostly on top of the dead and dieing animals and animal debris, and yes with some dead being above the moon dirt because of how some of the dead and dying which had not been landed on and crushed by the moon directly by landing on them . These who had not been landed on but were with in the re-waters flow had had to have washed over the moon dirt also as the moon pushed us like a keel of a boat in water . so tell guys is there dead animals below and above the gray sterile moon layer ? and where ecactly is the most dead things under the sterile moon dirt layer … because that should prove where the moon hit us . what do they call the bones or the age when it is below the sterile gray moon layer?

    BUT boy that is a perfect moon layer right there , just dirt so foreign burnt and sterile like nothing alive ever lived on it , maybe because nothing ever did.

  67. Steve Garcia knew this —

    Asteroids might not be as dangerous as you think! Most space rocks are weaker than those on Earth and crumble on entry

    •Space rocks fall to Earth as meteorites all the time, but few are recovered
    •Scientists usually reluctant to crush them, so use Earth rocks for tests
    •But a team in the US has tested samples of meteorites for their strength
    •Found they are almost as brittle as concrete and likely to break apart

    By Abigail Beall For Mailonline


  68. wow I found it ..http://www.postandcourier.com/20160521/160529887/topper-site-find-reveals-people-were-here-long-before-previously-thought
    and just look at all that sterile moon dirt > yes it appears the stuff under the moon dirt is being falsely dated to 50000 years old and the stuff on top is being dated to about 12000 years ago and it really all happened exactly the same day about time, times and half time ago ( ps that means less than 3500 years ago) at the bronze age collapse and that isn’t even Noah’s Flood but just the Re-waters and they got it that wrong. That event which has been memorialized as Serpent Mound here and on the Rhinestones by the PICT’s and as Mr Bard points out as the dragons chasing the orb(? moon?) by the Chinese and just way too many other nations stories to name them all. my guess is that the Orb was the moon , it has to be the moon I mean the moon left it’s footprint and it now our footprint is all over the face of the moon . have fun guys I think it is coming out of Serpentarius/Ophiuchus… might I suggest you get whatever it was that you all get what Shadrach , Meshach and abendigo had that you don’t . ISA. 23 and 24… is the round two.

  69. Returning to the subject of the YDB, we seem to have new support via research at the LLNL, of all places.

    See —

    Shock compression research shows hexagonal diamond could serve as meteor impact marker

    Date: March 14, 2016

    Source: DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Summary: In 1967, a hexagonal form of diamond, later named lonsdaleite, was identified for the first time inside fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite, the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater in Arizona. Since then, occurrences of lonsdaleite and nanometer-sized diamonds have been speculated to serve as a marker for meteorite impacts, having also been connected to the Tunguska explosion in Russia, the Ries crater in Germany, the Younger Dryas event in sites across Northern America and more.


  70. Trent –

    They actually claim to have found remnants of the body that created Barringer?


    Why am I skeptical about such a claim?

    Because everything I’ve read until now asserted that no meteorite was found in Barringer Crater. In reading so far, I can’t find anything that explains why they tie Canyon Diablo materials with Barringer. Assertions that they are connected, yes. Assertions are not evidence.

    I am willing to be convinced, but at least mildly skeptical.

  71. steve,

    “At the time of first discovery by Europeans, the surrounding plains were covered with about 30 tons of large oxidized iron meteorite fragments. “

  72. CevinQ – I don’t consider ScienceDaily a source. It’s science for the masses and is not required to meet any standards.

  73. They also don’t say who or when. What century? What decade? Any names? “30 tons” sounds like a lot of exact measurements over a lot of time, with Europeans mostly passing through. Who compiled the totals?

    “The first discovery by Europeans” means nothing to me. Was it Spanish conquistadors? If so, how would they have known that they were meteor fragments, since rocks falling from the sky was not accepted by science till about 1810?

    I would also ask that if that assertion is true, then why did Barringer fail so miserably in finding anything after so many years? He certainly would have had his ear to the ground about finds in the area.

  74. The reason they tie canyon diablo frgments to the crater, is because fragments were found on the rim of the crater, come on man.

    Heres is a list of the best known fragments found at the crater,

    “The biggest fragment ever found is the Holsinger Meteorite, weighing 639 kilograms (1,409 lb), now on display in the Meteor Crater Visitor Center on the rim of the crater. Other famous fragments:

    485 kilograms (1,069 lb), Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand. The largest fragment outside the United States.[5]
    360 kilograms (790 lb), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris
    242.6 kilograms (535 lb), Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona[6]
    225.9 kilograms (498 lb), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    194 kilograms (427 lb), Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin.
    162 kilograms (357 lb), Meteorite Museum, University of California, Los Angeles [7]
    136 kilograms (300 lb), Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.[8]
    122 kilograms (269 lb), Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, California. Fragment loaned by the Geology Department of Pomona College.
    179 kilograms (395 lb), Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, California.
    100 kilograms (220 lb), California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
    54 kilograms (119 lb), Newark Museum, Newark, New Jersey.
    Basket Meteorite (22 kilograms (49 lb)), Meteor Crater Museum, Arizona.[9][10]”

    “They also don’t say who or when. What century? What decade? Any names? “30 tons” sounds like a lot of exact measurements over a lot of time, with Europeans mostly passing through. Who compiled the totals?

    “The first discovery by Europeans” means nothing to me. Was it Spanish conquistadors? If so, how would they have known that they were meteor fragments, since rocks falling from the sky was not accepted by science till about 1810?

    I would also ask that if that assertion is true, then why did Barringer fail so miserably in finding anything after so many years? He certainly would have had his ear to the ground about finds in the area.”

    With all due respect Steve, now your just being a tool.

    Berringer was looking for a 100 million ton chunk of iron, something that we now know doesnt exist, since the impactor was 300,000 tons and mostly vaporized.

    “In a new paper published by Nature Communications, a team of researchers, including scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), provide new insight into the process of the shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond and uniquely resolve the dynamics of the phase change.”

    So a peer reviewed paper by some of the foremost material scientists in the world is “science for masses”

    I’ve actually read the paper in Nature, you might want to give it a try.

    “The shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond has been of great scientific and technological interest since the discovery of microscopic diamonds in remnants of explosively driven graphite. Furthermore, shock synthesis of diamond and lonsdaleite, a speculative hexagonal carbon polymorph with unique hardness, is expected to happen during violent meteor impacts. Here, we show unprecedented in situ X-ray diffraction measurements of diamond formation on nanosecond timescales by shock compression of pyrolytic as well as polycrystalline graphite to pressures from 19 GPa up to 228 GPa. While we observe the transition to diamond starting at 50 GPa for both pyrolytic and polycrystalline graphite, we also record the direct formation of lonsdaleite above 170 GPa for pyrolytic samples only. Our experiment provides new insights into the processes of the shock-induced transition from graphite to diamond and uniquely resolves the dynamics that explain the main natural occurrence of the lonsdaleite crystal structure being close to meteor impact sites.”


  75. CevinQ –

    I am at a loss as to why the multiple things I’ve read about Barringer and his search did not mention the ejecta found outside the crater. Either I read sloppily or the sources were sloppy. I have no idea at this point.

    I don’t see that you’ve answered as to when or by whom. I will take it at this point that the “by whom” is not important, but I AM curious about the chronology of finding the fragments.

    As I read it, the paper discusses things other than what I was addressing. Still, I am happy to read the latest developments about the mechanics of diamond-forming in impacts. I like to understand these things in as much detail as possible (which is often where my questions come from). There is some very informative stuff in there.

    Wow, I got a surprise. As to the meteorites, in looking at the Holsinger Meteorite at http://cseligman.com/text/meteors/holsinger.jpg, I see the fusion crust of a DIRECTLY entering object. That surface to me looks exactly like a crust made prior to the meteorite slowing down. It is caused by ablation of the frontally exposed surface. Fusion crusts only form a few millimeters thick and would be/should be the most susceptible part of the object as it hit and formed a crater.

    From looking at it, I am virtually certain that that surface would not have survived in that condition if it was ejected out of the crater. At the pressures within the crater, that object would have been vaporized – or would have continued under the crater and buried itself deep.

    My guess? It was an accompanying fragment that never got to Barringer Crater itself. How an iron meteoroid/meteor with its inherent internal cohesiveness and density could break apart before impact I am not informed about, so it is a shot in the dark. But THAT meteor never saw the inside of Barringer, IMVHO. That fusion crust gives it away.

    So, basically, I am questioning the interpretation of this as an ejected piece of Barringer’s impactor.

  76. Jim Coyle emailed me about the Hoba Meteorite, which is the largerst meteorite of them all at 66 tons.

    I thought others would be interested…

    They seem to see oddities in it, in good part because there is no crater. In looking at it, I see an object that can be explained with what I think I understand of meteors and ablation and aerodynamics. (The last of those I am weak on, but I THINK I can explain it,. if anyone cares to ask.) It’s a pretty cool object, in shape and characteristics.

  77. Visited Barringer crater not too long ago. There are lots of iron fragments on display and quite a bit of exploratory digging going on in the bottom looking for whatever. There is a story Barringer hoped to find large nickle deposits as they did in a crater in Canada but no nickle was found. Great tour and views of the crater. Great place for meteor fans to visit. Also, great RV park near the entrance if you RV.

  78. Hmm… Comment last night did not take…


    The Canadian crater is Sudbury (generally accepted as ~1.7-1.8 billion years old), just above Lake Huron and almost on the same axis as Saginaw, with semi-close to the same alignment. LOTS of metals in Sudbury. In itself that makes it somewhat unique.

    While Sudbury was long thought to be a meteor crater, in 2014 a paper declared it to be from a comet. Either way, the metals seem to be assumed to come from the mantle’s magma.

    Vredefort Crater (2.0 billion years old) in S Africa is bigger but apparently has no such magmatic metals that were brought up and concentrated.

    I’ve been looking into Sudbury of late, and I am not convinced of the standard story on it. I don’t have an alternative answer, though.

    LOL – some of you may think I don’t believe anything. I just happen to notice inconsistencies. And inconsistencies to me suggest that someone is missing something that might might change the interpretation(s).

  79. Steve… you may not believe anything but I have a really cool Meteor Crater T shirt!

  80. I found this at WattsUPWithThat…

    Why did agriculture start 13,000 years ago? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/25/why-did-agriculture-start-13000-years-ago/

    I don’t agree with Anthony Watts’ embarrassingly simplistic thinking, but we do need to think about the start of agriculture (and the domestication of animals, and the beginning of writing, and more) in its context with the YDB.

    Uniformitarian-think keeps using crowbars of all sorts to pry/force all sorts of things into the gradualist meme. We can’t blame them – that’s all they’ve got to work with (so they think). So everything has to be wrangled and bent and twisted, no matter how much, in order to fit it into uniformitarianism.

    In engineering we used to have a running joke – “Cramming 10 pounds of shit into a 5-pound bag.” That is what the crowbar tries to do. But it doesn’t fit.

    “If it does not fit, you must acquit.” (Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpson trial…)

    We have a superior concept.

  81. Steve,

    The post you linked to is embarrassingly simplistic, and brings to mind a shirt I saw online this morning that said, “I might be a great welder, but I cant fix stupid”

    The first simplistic assumption is that all agriculture has its roots in the grass bearing anatolian uplands. Umm, NO, ancient people of south and south east asia were cultivating edible palms as far back a 40kish years ago, the people of east central and coastal asia were cultivating berries and acorns 25K years ago, and you can follow the spread of the fig from its native homelands in NE africa, as humans started to move out of there and into arabia and the levant starting about 200k years ago.
    In terms of near eastern roots of agriulture, it begins during the LGM 23kya,

    “Weeds are currently present in a wide range of ecosystems worldwide. Although the beginning of their evolution is largely unknown, researchers assumed that they developed in tandem with cultivation since the appearance of agricultural habitats some 12,000 years ago. These rapidly-evolving plants invaded the human disturbed areas and thrived in the new habitat. Here we present unprecedented new findings of the presence of “proto-weeds” and small-scale trial cultivation in Ohalo II, a 23,000-year-old hunter-gatherers’ sedentary camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel. We examined the plant remains retrieved from the site (ca. 150,000 specimens), placing particular emphasis on the search for evidence of plant cultivation by Ohalo II people and the presence of weed species. The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley. Among these, we identified 13 well-known current weeds mixed with numerous seeds of wild emmer, barley, and oat. This collection provides the earliest evidence of a human-disturbed environment—at least 11 millennia before the onset of agriculture—that provided the conditions for the development of “proto-weeds”, a prerequisite for weed evolution. Finally, we suggest that their presence indicates the earliest, small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals seen in the archaeological record.”


    So just from that site alone the assertion that agriculture development is tied to C02 levels falls on its face.

    You are right that the widespread start of agriculture around the world is tied to the onset of the Younger Dryas, as the extreme change in climate patterns and wildlife habitats pushed people to new subsintance patterns.
    It shows in the new world,with the development of domesticated plants like corn, beans and squashes, in SE asia with the start of rice agriculture and of course in anatolia with the cereal grains and long term storage of said grains, all around 11kya.

  82. CevinQ –

    Hey, I DID say it was simplistic, too, didn’t I? The linked article is even shorter than Anthony’s.

    Thanks for your comments that add a lot to the picture. It’s a very good point that all human-assisted edible plants are not grains. Much of the world historically gets its carbs from taro

    —FYI, and whatever it might someday mean, your 200k date happens to match the age that the Berbers claim for their society in far NW Africa. (With sea levels so much lower prior to the YDB, according to present science, the Straits of Gibraltar would have been a walkable isthmus for most of that 200k, so they would have been contemporary in Spain and SW Europe with Neandertals.) Does it mean anything? In time, perhaps.

    It is probably my latent and blatant skepticism, but I accept Israeli findings of “earliest agriculture” with a grain of salt, because they are specifically LOOKING for these things, while elsewhere around the world there is very little or no research into this topic. Yes, they are finding early, early indications of sedentary societies – because they are looking for them. I accept that they are finding them but think we aren’t finding them elsewhere because no one is looking. YET. I fully expect that in time earlier settlements will be found in various places.

    Just as you point out the non-grain plants, I suggest that even what they find can only be – SHOULD only be – seen as “earliest SO FAR and earliest only of THIS kind of food plants”.

    With the migration across southern Asia and even to Australia by at least 45kya, there were certainly thousands of locations that would have/could have been settled. Nomads don’t keep moving if the pickings locally are good. They have no “food reason” to move onward. And the Out of Africa meme does insist that people did stop along the way. Along that route alone should be found many early, early domesticated plant sites – once they begin looking for them. And given the climate along that Asian route, grains may not be the plants found.

    So, though these folks found the earliest locations SO FAR, the previous “so far” was eclipsed, and so will this one. We are only a short time in the research into this, so expect to see many cases were “so fars” are eclipsed.

    I would ask the question, in this particular case: “How did the climate allow for cultivation in this location? If the wind patterns at the LGM were the same as now (highly doubtful, but not taken into account yet), why would a place this far from the polar ice have a suitable climate? As far as that goes, the entire region?

    With no explanation for WHY ice (supposedly) ran as far south as northern Poland, there can not follow any explanation for why the Sea of Galilee was cultivatable, either. One cannot disconnect the two. Only by having Galilee closer to northern climate (or by changing the prevailing wind currents) can Galilee have changed from an emmer-growing location to the desert it is now (sans irrigation).

    The passage, “The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley,” is startling. Gathering over one hundred species? Does this mean in the agricultural period, or in the hunter-gatherer period? Either way, it implies a SUPER long period for the accumulation of human knowledge about what is edible and what is not. It does not seem possible that this statement could mean cultivable plants. That they almost immediately mention “small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals” MUST indicate that this 140 is during the hunter-gatherer period. 140 is not small-scale.

    But then, do they talk about 140 in just THAT location? If so, that is even MORE remarkable. What place NOW has 140 different edible plants? What place now has even FORTY? I pretty sure I could not name 140 specific edible plants, even now. I’d begin slowing down after a few dozen.

    I see some of this as very strange.

    Let’s also take into consideration Gobekli Tepe. It is a fully-fledged, fully developed architecture. That alone indicates that sedentary societies existed for a very long time – certainly a few thousand years. Thus, anyone asserting that 13,000 years ago might have been the earliest of the early cultivated plants would be dead wrong, right off the bat. With 13kya ruled out, 23kya seems at least in the range of possibility. A bit early? Who knows? If we compare those 11,000 years from 23kya to 12kya (Gobekli Tepe) to OUR last 11,000 years, how far did OUR architecture develop after 13,000ya, up to 2,000 years ago? Gobekli Tepe stands in good/fair comparison to Roman architecture.

    The real question might not be how long ago, but how long did agriculture LAST at Galilee? When did it stop? My guess is at 13kya.

  83. I ran across this and it seems to apply to forgotten clovis technology —

    Researchers discover how rope was made 40,000 years ago
    Archaeologist from the University of Tübingen present a sophisticated tool carved from mammoth ivory that was used to make rope


    Video of the Ice Age technology: https://youtu.be/Z5B6ndWjKJg
    Video – How the ivory artifact was used to make rope: https://youtu.be/N1VSNKvzZEM
    Video – Researchers at the University of Liège making rope: https://youtu.be/4WedyatF_zY

  84. Hummm…gene identification technology is giving anthropologists what for.


    Homo sapiens interbred with THIRD species of hominin on way to Australia: DNA study finds mystery new ancestor
    •Scientists sequenced genomes of indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands and populations from mainland India
    •Found parts of their DNA did not match any hominin species on record
    •Questions findings that modern humans populated Asia in two waves

    By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com

    Published: 17:36 EST, 25 July 2016


  85. trent –

    That articles concludes with:
    Professor Jaume Bertranpetit at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain made the discovery after looking at the genomes of indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands and from mainland India.

    They found parts of their DNA did not match any hominin species on record.

    FYI: A good friend, Lloyd Pye, before he died in 2014 was able to finally get his Starchild skull fully DNA tested. NEITHER nuclear DNA nor MtDNA matched any hominin species on record – NOR any other animal’s DNA on record. The Starchild skull was found in NW Mexico and C14 dated to about 900 years ago.

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