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

Mahaney….Again!: New Evidence from a Black Mat Site in the Northern Andes Supporting a Cosmic Impact 12,800 Years Ago

The_Journal_of_Geology

Source: JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY Volume: 121 Issue: 4 Pages: 309-325 DOI: 10.1086/670652 Published: JUL 2013

Abstract:
Previous work has ascribed a cosmic impact origin to black, high-temperature, carbon-encrusted beds (2–3 cm thick), associated with the Younger Dryas readvance of ice at 12.8 ka during the Late Glacial in the northern Andes of Venezuela. The evidence for this includes carbon spherules, aluminosilicate melt rocks, melted coatings of glass-like amorphous carbon, and Fe-Mn on sands and clasts derived from local felsic gneiss and granite. These sediments have been subjected to renewed investigation using high-resolution scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectrometry, and new data show that spherules at site MUM7B exhibit unique morphologies and compositions. Molar oxide weight percentages prove the spherules are not volcanic and show little overlap with cosmic materials. Spherule microstructures display quench melting and, thus, could not have formed from slow geological authigenic, diagenetic, or metamorphic processes. Instead, geochemical values for the Venezuelan samples plot within the limits of impact-related materials, including tektites, ejecta, and impact spherules from a number of craters and strewnfields (cf. Chicxulub Crater, Chesapeake Bay Crater, Tunguska, Australasian tektite field, Lake Bosumtwi Crater, Ries Crater, and others). These results are identical to previously reported spherules from the Younger Dryas boundary layer (YDB) on three continents, North America, Europe, and Asia, and the most likely origin is from a cosmic impact/airburst 12.8 ka, as previously proposed. The MUM7B site is one of the two southernmost sites (Venezuela and Peru) in South America, thus extending the evidence supporting the YDB impact event into a new hemisphere on a new continent.

84 Responses

  1. CORPUS DELICTI

    A Latin term meaning the “body of [the] crime” that refers to the idea that the requisite elements of a crime must be proven before an individual can be tried for the crime.

    (core-pus dee-lick-tie) Latin for the “body of the crime.” Used to describe physical evidence that a crime has been committed, such as the corpse of a murder victim or the charred frame of a torched building. It’s used to refer to the underlying principle that, without evidence of a crime having been committed, it would be unjust to convict someone.
    Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

    If the body of the crime is the evidence from the surface of the Earth, then one must ask if forensics alone is adequate for establishing an impact at 12,800 ya.

    We could go to “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does that make it a duck?” but that is only strongly suggestive. Yet, if we look throughout science many a theory is based upon strongly suggestive evidence. For example the interpretation of Heinrich events as ice rafting.

    There is definite evidence that a “crime” has been committed, in all the forensics, as shown in Wittke and the Harvard paper – as well as papers going all the way back to Firestone 2007. Blood splatter on a wall is good evidence that a crime has almost certainly been committed, even without a corpse. It’s not 100%, but as more of that kind of evidence keeps coming in, the reasonable doubt diminishes.

    We can’t declare a premature victory, though we can maybe begin flaunting it like Usain Bolt as he crosses the finish line. We are 5 meters from the finish line with a 7 meter lead.

  2. One of the most important aspects of science is its ability to predict results.

    If a hypothesis by a scientist does not successfully predict, the view is that it is not science. That is what all the skepticism is based on: They argue that the predicted black mat and nanodiamond and spherule evidence doesn’t exist in the places and levels they sampled.

    When other researchers DO find corroborating evidence, then at least four possibilities exist:

    1. The evidence is not everywhere
    2. The skeptics sampled wrong or
    3. The skeptics’ protocols were wrong
    4. The protocols were badly adhered to

    The corroborating evidence such as is in this Mahaney paper show that the hypothesis is either correct or is tending to be correct. With the number of corroborating research that has turned up, it means that the if the skeptics want to remain in the discussion, they need to re-examine the work they did and find out why everyone but their little clique has not gotten the results everyone else is getting.

    We don’t need them to do that, because the Wittke paper (for example) already eviscerated their work. And they have yet to respond with a defense for their sloppiness. (Not that there is a defense in science for sloppiness. Sloppiness should never reach the journal pages.) Their work doesn’t need to be eviscerated, though, if enough other work clearly points out the forensics in many different sites on four continents.

  3. I see I need to re-do this sentence:

    “With the number of corroborating research that has turned up, it means that the if the skeptics want to remain in the discussion, they need to re-examine the work they did and find out why everyone but their little clique has not gotten the results everyone else is getting.”

    This should read:

    “With the number of corroborating research that has turned up, it means that the if the skeptics want to remain in the discussion, they need to re-examine the work they did and find out why everyone in their little clique has not gotten the results everyone else is getting.”

    They need to review their work and either come on board or really do some extra-special work to rebut the rebuttals. If they can’t bring themselves to do either, then they are superfluous to the subject under discussion. If they think they can stand on the sloppy work they’ve done so far, they’ve already lost and need to just quietly drop out of the discussion. More of the same quality of work would be an utter joke.

  4. This is an object lesson in science, following all the YDB developments.

    On one hand it is (like I’ve said before( very cool to be this close to a revolutionary concept that has taken more and more form as time has gone on – irrespective of how much more work there is to be done by the YDB Team and the independents. As solid as the work has been, it’s been a privilege to see it come in, one paper at a time.

    On the other hand, it hsa been educational about how resistance to new ideas by groups.teams./cliques can cause them to almost defraud science with sloppy work that is so slanted it is hard to see it as anything but intentional. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt; perhaps they are in areas they don’t know well enough.

    After all, it is NEW, and new means new ground, new associations, and new interpretations of some works from the past. Since the past was gradualistic and the new hypothesis is non-gradualistic, the underlying foundation shifts to an entirely different framework, and old ideas need different interpretations and different approaches. What are NOT new are the physical laws governing the chemistry, geology, impacts, atmosphere, and NEOs – though even those may need to be looked into as regarding corollaries and assumptions arising from the laws, as well as broadening inch by inch what is accepted about impactors and impacts.

    It’s hasn’t even been 200 years since rocks from the sky/space have been accepted as being other than wild tales. And it’s only been since Gene Shoemaker and Luis Alvarez in the 1980s that impactors have been recognized as solid science. So all of this is only in its gestation period now. In such a period it should be expected that new evidence will arise and widen our perspective. The old fuddy-duddy thinking that only what has already been proven is allowed is, in the long run, pretty dumb and mind-bogglingly limiting and short-sighted.

    It seems more and more likely that all of this – that a body or bodies hit the Earth well into in homo sapiens sapiens times – will someday before long be an accepted part of the panoply of science. It will not be a defeat for gradualism, but show that the natural history of our planet and solar system is more complicated than had been and needs an adjustment. Some such adjustment should have been fairly obvious after the SL-9 impacts on Jupiter in ’94. Knowing that comets do hit planets IN OUR TIME, it is not a far stretch to consider that comets and meteors may also be capable of hitting the Earth near our time. It doesn’t make it TRUE, but it makes it worthy of consideration, without blatant bias in either direction.

    The one thing that seems to be true is that IF something actually happened, then diligent research should at some point begin to turn up evidence of it. Rick Firestone didn’t set out to find an impact event; that makes the find even more appealing (though still not necessarily true). Serendipity in science does occur and does help the scientists with open minds and their ears to the ground to run up against – and RECOGNIZE – the something unexpected that might be “out there.”

    Acceptance of this impact will – when it comes (not if) – change the lay of the land. If comets or meteors can smack us within the time of man, only a hiccup in the past, it shines light on, not only astronomy and geology, but also on our history, as the indigenous accounts suggest. If we’ve gotten whacked hard enough to kill the mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers and Clovis man, we need to ask for one thing if human history is the long, slow ascent we’ve accepted as real for many decades now.

    Just looking at Clovis man and his bifacials: Where would man be today if those Clovis people had not nbeen wiped out? It took what? 2,000 or 3,000 years to come back up to that level – nearly half the history of man since Poverty Point and Sumeria. If we had those few thousands of years under our belts how far would we be along our developmental path? Give high-tech a 2,000 year head start and what kind of computers would we have by now? How good would our space program be? How long ago would The Pill have been developed, allowing man for the first time to control his numbers – but perhaps before we numbered 7 billion? How far along would medicine be? Energy technology? Transportation?

    Literally – would we by now have reached another star system? Don’t laugh. We are only 110 years into the sky at all. Most thought us getting there was impossible, until some unknowns saw a path by which to get there. And now we all take it for granted as the magic of electricity – using both everyday as easily as we breathe or walk (sometimes more so).

    If there are sentients on other planets, one wonders if they, too, have meteors and comets roaming around and sending THEM back to the Stone Age. Or, perhaps, did they get lucky and have a true void around them, so that their development didn’t get shut down once, twice,several times? And if so, how far would they have developed by being given an uninterrupted path of development? And how far back into the earlier billions of years of the universe would they have begun? Will we be that lucky some day?

    Our NEO searches can only look so far into the future. We now have – apparently – just under 13 millennia of development since Clovis and his tools was wiped out, setting us back those 2,000 or 3,000 years. We certainly can’t see if any NEO is going to T-Bone us in 5,000 years or 13,000. Are we destined to do it all over again? We all know that it is just a matter of chance whether we get hit by a 1-km object or a 3-km one or a series of 100 meter ones. And each of those portends setting us back maybe 10 years, maybe 200, maybe 20,000.

    The lesson of the Younger Dryas impact event is the full breadth of our history and our civilization. Not to mention the adjusting of our scientific foundation.

  5. Here below, from the Mahaney et al article is start of the “Discussion” and “Conclusion.” At first, it wouldn’t open as a PDF in the Adobe Reader, but then I managed to trick it, by first opening the document in Preview, then save as PDF, and lo and behold, now the Adobe Reader condescended to open it!! So here goes what I laboriously copied and reformatted:

    From Mahaney et al, above-mentioned incl Abstract:

    Discussion

    The worldwide resurgence of ice during the YD, just after the LG Bølling-Allerød interstadial, has resulted in a decades-long controversy as to its cause. The effect of the resurgence is well known and studied in many locales and on many continents, but its cause is still being debated. In some cases, the resurgence is well documented stratigraphically with YD sediments overlapping earlier LG deposits (Mahaney and Keiser 2013). In still other cases, presumed YD deposits are found directly atop unweathered bedrock, and because of the lack of evidence for push moraine characteristics, the only proof of a YD affinity is a few cosmogenic dates that fall close to or within the YD window of 12–12.8 ka cal. B.P. Many have argued against the connection between the YD resurgence and the YDB impact event principally because of reservations about the ability of a simple cosmic impact/airburst to sustain expanded ice for a millennium (Pinter and Ishman 2008; Broecker et al. 2010). Assuming the impact/ airburst event is responsible for triggering the YD glacial advance, the question is still open of how a single impact event could have sustained the YD for a millennium. It is possible that, once the YD ice began to expand, it may have sustained a glacial climate for centuries by altering the micro-climate into negative territory (at least in the mountains). Another possibility is that iceberg calving and meltwater runoff from the Laurentide Ice Sheet caused by the impact may have initiated the widely accepted shutdown of thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic. Once ocean circulation stopped, system-wide inertia kept it from restarting for 11000 yr.

    There is also a question of whether the carbonencrusted sediment at MUM7B, barely 3 cm thick, is actually a correlative of the black mat seen elsewhere in North and South America, Europe, and central Asia. When originally observed during routine stratigraphic work in the Me´rida Andes, the carbon-encrusted and disrupted bed sediment was considered to be the result of wildfire caused by lightning, along the lines of previous studies by Barnett (1911), Blackwelder (1927), and Wright (1999) and the summaries in Birkeland (1999) and Mahaney et al. (2007b), although the prospect of achieving widespread conflagration in a first-seralstage and likely wet tundra seemed remote (Mahaney et al. 2008). More detailed laboratory evidence of recovered samples revealed a growing corpus of data suggestive of impact ejecta from local airbursts and resulting ionizing incandescent cloud, including among other criteria, twisted, melted quartz, planar deformation features (PDFs), glassy spherules, microspherules, and abnormally high concentrations of Fe, albeit with no elevated Ni (Mahaney et al. 2010a). Further analytical work using a focused ion beam system and transmission electron microscope indicated abnormal disrupted minerals heated to a temperature of !1500″C, the effect producing considerable breccia and excessive fractures in addition to melted and contorted grains (Mahaney et al. 2011).

    Similarities between the black mat in MUM7B and experimentally fired quartz (Mahaney et al. 2010b) support the hypothesis that intense heat and physical perturbations produced the Venezuelan grains. The microfeatures include intense brecciation and internal fracture patterns in both sample groups. Brecciation is more intense in the black mat samples compared with the experimentally fired grains, which may result from (a) particle impact rather than heating, (b) higher initial temperatures, and/or (c) more rapid cooling. Microfracture patterns in the black mat samples are both parallel to and normal to the surface, the variation being a product of impact energy or variably spaced energy cone vectors (Mahaney et al. 2010b). Within the experimentally fired grains, the brecciated surface is closer to the grain surface and internal microfracture patterns are either aligned with crystallographic planes, as is the case with feldspars, or random with quartz, presumably resulting from poor to indistinct cleavage.

    The black mat material in MUM7B ranges from thin to thick, sometimes fibrous, carbon-rich material with accessory Fe and Mn to glassy C-rich spherules. The latter are often welded to grain surfaces covered with layers of Fe and Mn and sometimes are accompaniedwith Cl as probable ion sites in aluminosilicate glass (Stebbins and Du 2002). Glass-like carbon is frequently welded to grains of variable mineralogy, producing topographically irregular forms often associated with brecciated microfeatures of some depth radiating into zones of high-frequency microfractures. These fractures are produced either by mass impact, soot release from wildfires (Stich et al. 2008), or heat release. In experimentally fired grains, heat-induced microfractures are random in quartz and widely spaced, whereas to the contrary, in the MUM7B samples, microfractures are closely packed into high-density areas which possibly are vibration-generated microfeatures from energy cone vectors.

    The black mat data derived from MUM7B samples thus far supports a kinetic theory of mass impact that produced brecciated surfaces with a high frequency of closely spaced microfractures and grain-to-grain collisions at extremely high velocity, although with variable masses involved (Bunch et al. 2012). It is highly unlikely that particulate matter falling on MUM7B originated from an impact as far away as southern Canada. About 95% of impact ejecta falls within five crater radii and most ejecta falls off exponentially with distance (Boslough 2012), meaning that a vanishingly small amount would have landed at the MUM7B site. The best explanation is a local airburst that produced ejecta in the fine sand to silt range, whereas the resident host grains ranged from small pebbles to coarse sand, derived from the country rock. The welded character of amorphous-C-bonded material argues for extreme heat at temperatures much higher than 900″C, which was the firing temperature of the experimentally tested grains but apparFigure 8. Fe-rich spherule (40 mm) depicting plate-like “soccer ball” texture (arrow) caused by melting and rapid quenching to form Fe crystals. Composition is FeO, 51 wt%; SiO2, 26 wt%; and Al2O3, 15 wt% (table 1). Bottom half of spherule is embedded in SEM stub adhesive. ently not high enough to melt quartz. The exact temperature of incoming ejecta from an airburst is unknown, but to melt Fe that formed spherules requires temperatures of 1535″C. To weld amorphous C to grain surfaces without melting quartz requires temperatures between 900″C and 1713″C, the melting temperatures of a quartz and b tridymite and/or cristobolite, if present, where the estimated melting temperature of the latter is somewhat higher than a quartz (Frondel 1962; Deer et al. 1966). This establishes a likely temperature range of 1535″–1713″C.

    Possible alternative hypotheses invoked to explain the black mat might focus on the nature of the placon [etc, etc] . . .

    Conclusion
    The spherules from Venezuela are morphologically and compositionally identical to YDB spherules documented elsewhere, confirming the YDB magnetic spherule results of previous researchers (Firestone et al. 2007a, 2007b; Israde et al. 2012; Bunch et al. 2012; LeCompte et al. 2012; Wittke et al. 2013). Their microstructural texturing indicates they formed from melting and rapid quenching and, thus, could not have formed through geologically slow processes, such as authigenesis, diagenesis, or metamorphism. In addition, their geochemical compositions are inconsistent with volcanism and meteoritic ablation, and their depth of burial precludes anthropogenic contamination. As shown in figure 11, spherule geochemistry plots within the limits of known impact-related materials derived from terrestrial sediments, such as tektites, ejecta, and impact spherules from 12 crater and strewnfields (Chicxulub crater, Chesapeake Bay crater, Tunguska, Australasian tektite field, Lake Bosumtwi crater, Ries crater, and more). Thus, the most likely origin of the spherules seems to be by cosmic impact/airburst 12,800 years ago with interhemispheric consequences. The MUM7B site in Venezuela, along with one in Peru, are the two southernmost sites currently known to display evidence for the YDB impact event, and these sites represent the first evidence that the effects of the impact event extended into South America, even into the Southern Hemisphere.

  6. From the Abstract:

    Many have argued against the connection between the YD resurgence and the YDB impact event principally because of reservations about the ability of a simple cosmic impact/airburst to sustain expanded ice for a millennium (Pinter and Ishman 2008; Broecker et al. 2010). Assuming the impact/ airburst event is responsible for triggering the YD glacial advance, the question is still open of how a single impact event could have sustained the YD for a millennium.

    Yes, this and the impact crater/site remain the two big questions. This is one point Pinter makes, but just pointing to it doesn’t get anyone anywhere. No one points at the same question in the increasingly discredited Lake Agassiz fresh water surge. Why would ONE surge cause 1300 years of ice age? The currents would soon enough re-establish themselves, because the Earth keeps revolving and the same influences would begin driving air and water currents within a year or two. Look at the Year Without a Summer of 1816. Once the Tambora ash was out of the stratosphere, it reverted soon enough. It wouldn’t take 1300 years for the fresh water to be mixed and dispersed. Oh, they can speculate why it lasted so long – but so can we. He said – she said.

  7. Abstract: “Once ocean circulation stopped, system-wide inertia kept it from restarting for 11000 yr.”

    See? They can wave their magic wands and call up “system-wide inertia” as something to KEEP the cold going, but the YDB is not allowed to. But the REAL system-wide inertia is what existed BEFORE, not what happened because of one flush. And ESPECIALLY because the flush never went into the Atlantic in the first place.

    Trust me, folks, the thermohaline circulation shut-down is a pipe dream that will be proven completely and utterly wrong. Sorry, Wally Broeker.

    I am looking at the foundational work of Sanford upon which the THC is built (I need to translate the rest yet). So far, I think it is a weak basis for what they argue.

    Because the YDB hypothesis is a paradigm-buster, they hold it to a higher standard of proof. Anything within gradualism is accepted with little argument. Anything remotely catastrophic brings out the stubborn Missouri mule in them: “Hell no! We won’t go (there)!”

    But on the forensics the YDB team and the independents are winning the day. The 1300 years is the next step.

  8. From the paper: “…the carbon-encrusted and disrupted bed sediment was considered to be the result of wildfire caused by lightning, along the lines of previous studies by Barnett (1911), Blackwelder (1927), and Wright (1999) and the summaries in Birkeland (1999) and Mahaney et al. (2007b), although the prospect of achieving widespread conflagration in a first-seral stage and likely wet tundra seemed remote (Mahaney et al. 2008).”

    Pathetic. For ONE HUNDRED YEARS a gradualist interpretation was accepted – even though

    the prospect of achieving widespread conflagration in a first-seral stage and likely wet tundra seemed remote

    .

    My own first reaction to “…was considered to be the result of wildfire caused by lightning…” was “WTF?” [Bold in the original – in my head…LOL]

    And that “remote” idea was accepted for a century????

    Boy, Firestone should be so lucky to get a pass like that…

  9. “In experimentally fired grains, heat-induced microfractures are random in quartz and widely spaced, whereas to the contrary, in the MUM7B samples, microfractures are closely packed into high-density areas which possibly are vibration-generated microfeatures from energy cone vectors.”

    This says “possibly”, which also means “possibly not.” (We should always read such caveats as also meaning “______ not”, too. No matter WHOSE paper they are in. Caveats DO mean both, after all; that is why they are inserted – to show the uncertainty. To read such statements without also reading the uncertainty – as is done often in the popular science – means misreading the meaning of the scientists involved.)

    However, I would say from my engineering knowldege that such “closely packed” high-density areas” would be similar to forging, where IMPACT is used intentionally in a known way. In forging one gets flow patterns in the crystal patterns. I’d suggest that thin cross sections be taken so as to see if the energy cone vectors are forming crystal or flow patterns. I personally think the energy cone patterns should be quite similar to forging flow patterns.

    Such an experiment would identify if the energy cone patterns really are there.

    After all, forging is simply another version of impacting.

  10. Pierson –

    I agree, there are likely quite a few, and maybe spread over time.

    But we have to consider that with 71% water, most of the impacts would have been oceanic, and if so, we should be finding a lot of evidence at that time of tsunamis and mega-tsunamis.

    Since we haven’t found physical evidence for those so far (though I DO think we find some of those in the ancient accounts), even if it seems obvious and very reasonable to assume many multiples, so far we’ve not got too much. Without the tsunamis we have to assume all land impacts – and that flies in the face of the odds.

  11. Mr.Howard; I have made several posts in the past and people have reponded. The last couple of times I have tried to post nothing has shown up. I was wondering if I was cut off for some reason? I find the rasearch fascinating and enjoy the progress your team and others are making on the YDB topic. I wouild appreciate a response either here or direct to my Email. I’ll respect your answer either way. Jim Coyle

  12. Steve

    You’re right the study is fantastic, thought-provoking.

    I was lucky when I began (2009) to investigate the cosmogenic hypothesis for palaeolagoons. There is a major center for archeology in the region where I started research. Inevitably I found a study (2004) of these important lagoons. Interestingly, addition of molten rock clasts (impactite) sedimentary strata indicate the age of 12,900 years old for the deeper sediment on base bedrock. It is possible to find impactites in these paleolagoons, indicating its probable cosmogenic origin.

    Unfortunately, not every field ponds I get information about their ages. However research continues to confirm the cosmogenic hypothesis for these fields of lagoons. This is a low-tech research, anyone can do it. I just collect rocks on the edges of the structures, what you can see with the naked eye. Other researchers in the future may do further studies.

    regards
    pierson

  13. Jim –

    George is on vacation at the moment, so he may not be able to respond right away. You should be able to see that your comment this time got posted.

    You also might have noticed that there is now a “Captcha” code and a check box when posting comments. CT had some problems recently with spam, and this required some form of filtering spam out beyond what existed before.

    It is possible your other comments got filtered by the spam filter. It might have been when George was trying things to solve the spam problem.

    If I may, I’d suggest you just keep on trying. To my knowledge George has (almost?) never blocked anyone. We have people here who can attest to that!

    Whatever comments you made before – or now – crank it up and try re-commenting now. There is no time limit (that I’ve seen) on CT for commenting on past posts.

  14. Yeah, I’m thinkin’ George an’ family are havin’ way too much fun in the mountains out west to worry about the Tusk right now. But he’ll be back better than ever after hookin’ a trout or three.

  15. Looked back through and did not find anything, Jim, but you are a familiar face — and always welcome at the Tusk! I have indeed upgraded and backed-up the entire site. More spam protection, nasty bug on posting scripts that made the fonts wild — gone — and other helpful improvements under the hood. Also, keep an eye out for the Wiki-Tusk! That should be fun….

    Facebook buddy Dennis is right, just back from Aspen, great, great time with my family. Friend me for pics!!

  16. Gentlemen; Thank you for your comments. After I posted the last message I went through the captcha and saw my comment posted. Only one thing to say——-DUH!!! I had asked in one of my screwed up postings if there were any YDB sites in Ill. If so I would like to visit one. Also when the last ice advance before YDB happened and the ice retreated did YD cause another advance of the ice sheets. The area where I live was glaciated to the bed rock and then scoured by the Kankakee Torrent. If there is any black matte in my area it should be reasonably close to the surface. If not whhy is this layer not consistant generally over the entire North America landscape? jim

  17. Hi Hermann

    The variations in Earth’s orbit has the Milankovitch cycles (41.000 years) the explanation for intermittency climate between the more or less hot.

    The larger surface area of the planet’s oceans determine the dynamics of the global climate. El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific are responsible for years of more or less drought in northeastern Brazil.

    Certainly at Ice Age this mechanism (another) provided a different climate than we have today, possibly milder, less dry, more frequent and better distributed rainfall in the region during the weather year.

    This milder climate at Ice Age, with more rainfall has always been the current explanation for the palaeolagoons origin. I disagree, it is cosmogenic.

    regards
    pierson

  18. Jim Coyle,
    of course: Johan “Han” Kloosterman, YDB team member, of Usselo, Netherlands, Black Mat fame, appeared on numerous Tusk pages. He’s a pro, and I made a dumb mistake to try and spar with him as a bloody amateur. As a young man he canoed through the Brazilian wilds of the CAMP basalts, . .

  19. Mr Kloosterman; I live in an area that was glaciated to the bedrock in the last Ice Age (Wisconsonian). I believe the YDB occurred after that time line. Line some areas by me htere is little top soil over the bed rock. I was wondering why there is no sign of the black matte. I would have thought it should have been a fairly common geologic formation. I can see variations in the thickness of the formation but I would think it would be fairly universal. Jim C

  20. Jim –

    Can I take a stab?

    First off, can you be more specific how far north you were?

    From what I read, your area was covered in ice. That ice was receding when the YDB impactor came visiting. It re-advanced for a bit from what I understand.

    If your area was UNDER the ice, it seems that the black mat would have been deposited on TOP of the ice and then been in the runoff when the ice melted. If so the black mat in your area got washed downriver and perhaps some of it made it out to sea.

  21. Steve; I live about 50 mi southwest of Chicago. There is a lot of moraine structures near by. I live on a section of what I believe is moraine. 1/4 mi down the road there is a creek that is into the dolomite bedrock of the area. the rise to my place is about 60 – 80ft. I guess you call it the top edge of the Kankakee river valley. I wasn’t sure about the time line of the glaciers and the YDB occurence. I was curious if the there was any known YDB sites in the area. I guess what the glacial melt didn’t take away the Kankakee Torrent most certainly did. Thanks for your response Jim C

  22. Steve; I have some pieces of what i was told is Dolomite limestone. A local retired Geologist told me dolomite is limestone infused with magneisum. I have some softball sized stones that have been identified a dolomite. It is extremely hard and glazed with tiny (gas pockets through out) pin holes. I would think for limestone to become glazed and show signs of vaporization it would have to have seen incredible heat. Any thoughts here? Jim C

  23. Jim –

    I’ve actually been to where dolomite was named for – the Dolomites in the SE Alps. Dolomite may be hard, but it isn’t very strong in shear. The reason the Dolomite Mountains are so stunning is because the rock keeps on breaking of in more or less vertical slabs. It is a pale brown/tan (from iron) or pinkish/grey (from manganese) color from what I’ve seen.

    [Wiki…] Formation

    Recent research has found modern dolomite formation under anaerobic conditions in supersaturated saline lagoons along the Rio de Janeiro coast of Brazil, namely, Lagoa Vermelha and Brejo do Espinho. It is often thought, that dolomite will develop only with the help of sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g. Desulfovibrio brasiliensis).

    Even so, the actual role of bacteria in the low-temperature formation of dolomite remains to be demonstrated in reproducible laboratory experiments. The specific mechanism of dolomite formation, involving for example sulfate-reducing bacteria, has not yet been documented.

    Vast deposits of dolomite are present in the geological record, but the mineral is relatively rare in modern environments. Reproducible, inorganic low-temperature syntheses of dolomite and magnesite were published for the first time in 1999. Those laboratory experiments showed how the initial precipitation of a metastable “precursor” (such as magnesium calcite), will change gradually into more and more of the stable phase (such as dolomite or magnesite) during periodical intervals of dissolution and re-precipitation. The general principle governing the course of this irreversible geochemical reaction has been coined “breaking Ostwald’s step rule”.

    A quite different occurrence of dolomite was that in the kidneys of a Dalmatian dog.

    I had to include that last bit…LOL

    The bold portion gives you some leeway, Jim. Mostly they don’t know – that’s a good one for suspecting alternate explanations.

    To me, though, if it is forming in lagoons, that really does imply sedimentary. If only UNDER lagoons, that would be another story.*** That they are oil dome rocks implies normally deep rocks. (The Dolomites are normally seen – as part of the Alps – as up-thrust from the Africa plate diving under the Eurasian plate, so in that kind of scenario deeper rocks can be pushed up.)

    …I wouldn’t necessarily call the pin holes “vaporization,” unless you call gas bubbles vaporization. I don’t recall seeing any pores like you describe in the dolomite in the Alps. I am not sure what to think of those pinholes.

    * * * *

    I am going to go on record here as having serious doubts about rocks (including stony or metallic meteoroids) being able to form out of planetary nebulae in an aggregating way. Aggregation on Earth requires some pressure applied to bind/force the aggregate together. I am WAY doubtful that any such forces can be found in asteroids or meteoroids. I doubt is such pressures exceed several tens of pounds per square inch (at the far extreme high values). I would estimate only a few PSI would be found, actually. Perhaps impacting can create such forces, but not drifting together – and in that case, impacting isn’t really aggregating in my understanding of the term. But that is the model used in explaining it. Also, impacts are at least as likely to pulverize as they are to force materials together.

    The existing planetary nebulae hypothesis also fails to explain the original formation of the rocks, whether they are stony or carbonate or metallic. And most of the metallic ones I’ve seen seem to be alloyed together – melted together under some pressure. Neither heat source nor sufficient pressure exist in a nebula. The heat from the forming of a star? I’ve never seen that included in the scenario, not in black and white. It might account for the molten-ness of rotating planets, so they can entropy down into balls. How does it explain the odd shapes of comets and asteroids and meteoroids – and their makeup? O know – the will invoke billions of years of impacting each other. Which brings up: Has anyone every actually seen asteroids hitting each other?

    So, anyway, it doesn’t seem to me that the dolomite is

    I think it takes a good deal of planetary gravity and internal heat to create meteoroids and asteroids.

    *** Lagoons in Brazil = probably on the Atlantic coast. Brazil’s Atlantic coast is not a tectonically active region as far as I know. Offshore Brazil has been the site of a huge oil field, not yet tapped. It was said to rival Iraq’s oil field, which is second in the world. Connection to dolomite formations? Perhaps.

  24. Dennis –

    “…‘The southern Laurentide Ice Sheet’ by David M. Mickelson et al might help ya’ll…”

    Any direct connection there between “southern” and “y’all”? Did that ice sheet have a drawl or a twang?

  25. Steve and Dennis; I’s appreciatin y’alls help on this matter. This old cowboy keeps finding these strange rocks all over my hay field. My ground is all glacial till I’ve got rocks from everywhere mixed in there. My dolomite is light grey to blue grey in color and somewhat heavy for their size, but the pin holes are the puzzle to me. And if there’s a Y’all anywhere around it’s got to be southern. Jim

  26. Steve; I’m going to break open one of my samples and see if the pinholing is internal as well as external. If only external I would have to believe that the holes are caused by organic acids in the soil or acid rains. If they’re internal also then? Could these have been exposed to high temps in an impact on or near the Laurentian Ice Sheet, blown out of their original location and hitched a glacial ride to the present location? Just a thought.

  27. Jim, what state did you say you live in? Just curious. I lived in N Illinois a long time. It was all glacial gravel beds, pretty deep. But we didn’t grow hay there – just corn, and an occasional soybean or two.

    Glacial, though – if you have glacial it seems that it would have been UNDER the southern edge of the ice sheet. It doesn’t seem probable for ejected rocks to end up there. If there was an impact on the ice sheet (like at possible Davias’ Saginaw Bay) the ejecta from under it got thrown elsewhere – including the ice sheet.

    My understanding is that ejecta is really pulverized in the process. As strong as your rocks are, they would have not stayed as large as you are talking about. I might be wrong, though. But think about the forces that create volcanic ash. There is only a small zone of thrown rocks and a HUGE area of ash. The thrown rocks are from explosions in the volcano that rip the top apart. The rest is escaping magma that includes water under great pressure. As it escapes the mouth of the volcano, the internal pressure is too much for the magma to hold in out in the open air, so the steam expands by 1,000-fold, shredding the magma and actually cooling it enough to solidify. It is shredded down to ash flakes, then those are carried aloft by the underneath gases expanding plus convection.

    Those pressures are FAR less than in an impact. Temperatures, too. Think of super-shredding of anything and everything. In an ice impact, the amount of steam produced is prodigious – even to plasma, the dissociation of the ice/water to hydrogen and oxygen. Anything and everything that isn’t melted is cracked and cracked and cracked again, till it is really small stuff. Impact evidence doesn’t seem to come in big packages like recognizable rocks. It is all in nano-diamonds an such in the nanometer range.

    If I am wrong about any of this, someone else please correct me.

  28. Steve; I live Wilmington Ill about 20 miles south of Joliet. I’m just 2 miles south of the Midewin national tall grass Prairie which is called a Dolomite prairie, supposedly rare. A very thin layer of soil over the dolomite bed rock. Most of the ground around me is used for corn and beans but I use about 8 of my ten acres to grow my own hay for my horses. I think I save money that way. I understand what you are saying about the till being the transportation method, It’s just those pinholes just don’t feel right.

  29. Cool! I used to live in Emington and then Cullom, back in the mid-’70s. Small world! That all is just about the southernmost extremity of the Wisconsin Glacial Episode.

    I have good friends in Kempton still. That is where Ed Grondine lives, even.

    They actually have nearly exposed bedrock there in Wilmington? I thought the gravels in all that area were quite thick/deep. I’ve honestly never even HEARD of bedrock in N IL except in NW IL. . . . Interesting.

    If you have photos of the pinholes, can you email them to me at [email protected]? I’d be interested in seeing them. I am NOT any expert, but am curious. And, like everyone here, I know more about quite a few things than I did last year at this time.

    p.s. How’s the harvest this year?

  30. Jim –

    BTW, did you know that Mazon, just NW of you, is famous for its fossils? You might be able to find where to go searching for them if you ask around over there. Heck, someone in Wilmington might even know where.

    Check out the images here: http://tiny.cc/k36q2w

  31. steve; Those fossil beds on the Mazon are something else if can’t find anything there you have your eyes closed I try to get onto farm fields in the spring after plowing and a good rain. Can usually find some good fern prints. I did have one with the fern still in it. The area of surface bedrock is just North of Wilmington in the nationl park. It’s between the Dupage, Desplains and Kankakee Rivers confluence, everything else from there is uphill. Hays doing good, 1000 bales first cut, 550 second cut, 170 3rd cut, 4th won’t happen until beginning of Oct. I’ve got enough for all my critters and then some.

  32. Jim –

    Yeah, I’d heard it was a good growing season. God on ya, Mate, on the hay.

    Okay, so the bedrock area is up in the area of the two nuclear plants? Dresden is at the Des Plaines- Kankakee-Illinois confluence (more or less) and Braidwood ain’t far south.

    But one interesting thing is the coal up there, near Coal City and all. How does one have coal beds on the surface, under where the ice sheets were? That is a question that I never asked before. Why not much gravel? or is there and I don’t know about it?

    George – believe me: This possibly pertains to things YDB. After all, it is really close to the possible Lake Chicago impact site and not far at all to the Saginaw Bay site.

    I LOVE considering connections between things that have not been necessarily considered before. Even if I am wrong, no problem. Questions, are, after all, just questions. SOME of them may have something there.

  33. Steve; At the end of the last ice age ther was an event called the Kankakee Torrent. This was supposed to be a glacial lake failure. Lake rises over the top of end Moraine – Moraine fails and the dam bursts sending gazillions of gallons water rushing South and West. This torrent carved out the Kankakee river valley , the illinois vally. Another theory is that the Saginaw bay impacxt carved out a hole in the ice pack down past the local bed rock. All the heat caused massive ice pack melt that filled the hole to such an extent that hydraulic pressure raised the ice pack and drainedthe water out under the ice. Maybe repeatedly.If all that water was funneling through this area I can seen there not being much soil left here. Also if there was an impact in lake Michigan there could have been a tsunami like occurance that followed the same track and washed out a lot of soil and clay. Coal seams in this area is usually found south of the Kankakee river and at depths around 100 ft down totally different topography. South of the river the ground is mostly sands, generally 15 or more ft before you get to the gravel bars which are another 20ft then you hit blue clay, after that ?

  34. Jim,
    if, as you suggest, an ET impact will explain the Kankakee Torrent, then this most likely is the correct explanation. This would be implied by my BASIC RULE OF PLANETARY SCIENCE (BROPS): 😉

    The trouble with ET impact research is that there are so many of them.

    Just a look at Luna, or Mercury, or . . . will explain what I mean. For anything that went wrong in history, — Clovis culture wipe out, Bronze Age civ collapse, Fall of Rome, Chinese Ming dynasty ousting Yuan dynasty, . . you name it, — in all earnest it probably was a climate downturn due to a comet frag shower or maybe an isolated asteroid striking Earth. —

    Case-in-Point: Planet Uranus on Wikipedia, HST image shown has “cloud” images. To me clouds look just like SL9 impact scars on Jupiter. According to BROPS, this is the likely explanation. Since Uranus is farther out than Jupiter, should we not expect it to be hit more often, despite its slightly smaller size?

  35. Hermann –

    Re Uranus getting hit more often than Jupiter because it is farther out, I think that wouldn’t be correct.

    Why do I think not? Two reasons:

    1. Because the bulk of the asteroids have apehelions that are inside Jupiter’s orbit. Not nearly as many objects exist outside Jupiter’s orbit.

    2. Because with the Sun at one focus of the elliptical orbit, and almost all comets having SOME tilt to the ecliptic, the farther out they go, the more out of the ecliptic they get.

    That’s my take on it, but I could be wrong.

  36. Sound reasoning, Steve, you are right. Also, the probability calculus for the huge areas out at 20 AU is no help either. The circular “clouds”on the HST image are strong hints, I felt.

  37. Steve; The nuke plant at Dresden is on the bed rock just south of the Illinois River and is an extension of the Dolomite prairie in that area. The Braidwood plant is on the sandy area south (west) of the Kankakee River. In the former coal producing areas. There are a whole slew of strip mine holes all around that region plus some shaft mines none of which are in use any more. Are lake Chicago and Saginaw bay impacts in the same time frame or they totally seperate from each other? Also has anyone looked any further south in this state for any YDB evidence? Either directly or accidently?

  38. Hello Jim, accept my excuses, I have been ill and out of email space, restarting slowly only in August. Your question I find just now, 2 months post posting.

    There are too many things I don’t understand! Of course I know that we’re born on a crazy planet (read The Fortean Times once in a while), but even so I try to make sense of things, seeing regularities and predictabilities. We can’t live without.

    Something I do not understand is why the Late Pleistocene climate around what remained of the Canadian ice cap wasn’t similar to the one in Europe. Here the European Sand Belt was formed around what remained of the Scandinavian ice cap, a sickle-shaped body stretching from England over N.France, Belgium, Holland, N.Germany, Denmark, and Poland to N.Russia.
    Excepting a few sites in the UK, all the Usselo occurrences I know or know about are within the so-called Coversands of this Belt.
    The sites in the UK outside the belt, which I know only per photograph, look more as sites in N.America.

    I don’t know what the Black Mat is, a word coming from Vance Haynes’ Black Algal Mat – but there have never been found any algae in it. So, what are they talking about? Here in Holland and surroundings, the Usselo Layer is a sand layer with sand (granulometrically) similar to the sand underneath and above, but with an enrichment in the smallest fractions – and that is of course wherein are found what the N.Americans call ET proxies. Within the layer, whether 3 or 12 cms thick, this extra material, about 2% by weight, is evenly distributed, vertically.
    At 3 or 4 places there is a thin (~5cm) peat-like layer on top of the Usselo Layer – is that perhaps what they call the Black Mat?

    When I first read about the layer in the UK, in a book by Derek Ager, in 1977, he also mentioned the Twocreekan forest, and I launched the hypothesis of a worldwide conflagraton. And the Twocreekan forest is in Illinois – perhaps it can help you in your research.
    Let me know.

    Regards,

    Han

  39. Herr Klosterman; Thank you for your time and expertise. The black mat I was referring to is the Younger Dryas Boundary. I was thinking that the YDB was not in this area because of the glaciation removing anything in it’s path. I’m not sure if the ice was advanced or retreated beyond my area 12,900 years ago. I’m thinking it was pulled back because the Kankakee & Illinois rivers had already been formed so there should be evidence of the YDB around here I’m just not sure where to look.

  40. Hi Jim –

    Several years ago I passed on the Osage memories of surviving the Holocene Start Impact Event at the salt lick south of Saint Louis. They came via “Fossil Legends of the First Americans” by Mayor, and they were not “Fossil Legends” but quite explicit in detail.

    I can not find a link to that posting now, and do not have the materials at hand; that is one reason why the Cambridge Conference and Bob Kobres archive of it was so useful. You might want to try one of the internet archiving sites.

    When this kind of thing occurs it is tough not to be paranoid; it is big dollars that are being fought over, and there are a lot of fanatics and insane people out there. If anyone is trying to claim copyright on Osage traditions…

    Back to the subject at hand, the Osage remembered exactly what happened.

    If you are interested in the ice sheets, there is work being done on the float copper distribution.

  41. Jim, I’m not a bloody Herr, part of the Herrenvolk, and when I meet a nice, well-educated German I’d rather describe him as a gentleman. You must be one of those Northamericans who think that phenomenon is the plural of phenomena.
    By all means, study some geography.

    For the geological problems you probably should study the geological map of Illinois, perhaps there are some Late Pleistocene sands anyhow, lateral equivalent of the European Coversands. If so, that would be good place to look for the Clovis Layer. It would have the advantage – as the Usselo Layer has here – that the time sequence can be studied better, from the stratigraphical superposition.
    And then it might turn out that the layer is NOT marking the lower YD boundary sharply.

    H.

  42. Han; My sincerest apologies, no disrespect intended. There is an area of sands just west of where I’m at. I’ll need to look see if there is any evidence of YDB between the suface and the coal seams approximately 100ft down. Again thank you for your time. Jim

  43. JimC

    Han is The Man.

    http://www.catastrophist.org/

    Check out the Fireplanet link on that site, “An e-mail discussion between Han Kloosterman, Derek V. Ager and Alfred de Grazia concerning Catastrophist Geology.” Han Kloosterman was observing the evidence of the Younger Dryas Lower Boundary and entertaining the concept of Global Conflagration while some of us were still in diapers, or even before….

    The 2007 film “Overturning of the Earth” on that site explains his well founded sensitivities about the evil and (self proclaimed) Nazi Herrenvolk (Master Race). It also details his rigorous scientific method and beautiful wacky genius regarding GeoSpace and Earth sciences.

    Legendary.

    TimH (I promise I am not a spammer….)

  44. Hi Hans –

    I have met people trying to locate clovis sites in Illinois.

    Aside from that, at this point in time I focus on data recovery rather than “theories”.

    One piece of current data is that Morrison’s rather constant insult that I am a Velikovsky wannabe really irritates me; Morrison refuses to mention Clube and Napier, even in his insults.

  45. Hello EP, in the German-speaking countries they don’t use Velikovsky to defile your face, but Alexander Tollmann. He was professor of geology at Vienna U. – the prestigious chair of Edward Suess, author of the famous Das Antlitz der Erde (The Face of the Earth), a century ago.
    Towards the end of his academic career, as a uniformitarist, Tollmann became a catastrophist and produced together with his wife their book on the Late Pleistocene impacts, in 1993 I think.
    It was never translated into English.

  46. TH; Thanks for the link to Han’s site. I’m hoping Han isn’t upset with me after my inappropriate addressing of him. After reading about the various sites and some of the stratas involved it’s possible I might be able to find some indications of YDB in my area. Does anyone know of any maps showing the approximate limits of the wisconsonian ice sheet at the time of the YDB?

  47. Hi Jim,

    This paper by David M. Mickelson and Patrick M. Colgan, and titled, The Southern Laurentide Ice Sheet might be the reference you’re looking for. But if you’re digging in a location that was both under the LIS, and then later as the ice retreated was submerged by Lake Agassiz, you may never find a clearly defined YDB layer; only stratigraphic evidence of the transition from sub-glacial to lacustrine conditions

    But if you can find a well defined exposure showing that transition such as a ditch wall, or some other excavation, perhaps a construction site, look for the clay layer that was once the under belly of the LIS, above that you should see a layer of glacial till, and debris, that can be anywhere from a few inches to hundreds of feet thick, and that was laid down as the ice melted. And finally a sand layer of varying thickness that represents the bottom sediments of Lake Agassiz.

    If you can find a sequence like that then any YDB materials will be found somewhere between the bottom of the sand layer, and the top of the glacial till. And even then it my be too thin to discern.

  48. Jim and Han –

    This Quaternary Deposits of Illinois Map you might like to look at:

    http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/visual.php?shortname=glacial_deposits

    For a bedrock geology map (if needed) of Illinois there seem to be quite a few at http://tiny.cc/ymcy3w

    The first of those has a remarkable pattern that is taken to be the direction the ice sheet flowed, but looks to me like it could just as well have been a pattern from an ice sheet impact. No one KNOWS what the effects of an ice sheet impact would be, so I propose that this is as possible an effect as any.

    I think it is important for all of us to realize that the impact hypothesis for the YDB, if found to be correct, would have ramifications for interpreting all SORTS of things that are currently thought to be gradualism in action. While we spend time talking about the possibility that the Carolina bays are secondary impactors, there may be all sorts of other effects out there being misinterpreted. And until someone looks at them in from an impact perspective, it won’t be possible to learn how big of an effect impacts have beyond the explosive initial impact and the creating of what are currently accepted as impact markers. The work is mostly going on at field collecting and the nano-particle scale and chemistry. Those are good – and necessary, big time – but what about effects in between super-macro and micro?

    The target materials – what happens to not only the ones that Boslough entrains in his conflagration, but the materials much more outboard? ALL of the materials can be melted or vaporized. Farther from ground zero the forces are still incredibly powerful, even if rocks aren’t melting. The Boslough modeling work shows the interior of the plume with lots of heat and pressure, creating all sorts of mayhem at the chemical level. But a bit further away it devolves into simply a lot of Newtonian bang, but on a humongous scale. What is going on “out there”?

    That looks like a possible splash pattern in NE IL. Just like the overkill effect for so long prevented people from considering other possible explanations, is the ice sheet explanation really correct? See the way those patterns flow, from ENE to WSW? That reading of the evidence is NECESSARY in the gradualist paradigm – as opposed to ice simply moving straight southward because there are some spindly rock spires out in western Wisconsin that simply could not have had ice sheets moving over – not without wiping out the spires. Ergo, they had to put this really weird notched area in the southern edge of the Wisconsinan ice sheet in western WI and western IL. That forced them to imagine the ice sheets coming from the EAST, not the north. And the moraines SEEM to agree, so they read the moraines as evidence that their reading of the ice sheets as correct.

    I conjecture that that pattern was instead the result of ice blasted away from the Saginaw impact of Michael Davias. Not ice melted or vaporized, but ice blasted and that never became plasma. It is certain that an ice sheet impact would have cracked the ice sheet (as well as melting much of it). Schultz’s hyper-velocity impact onto ice video was done to look at what the effect would be on UNDER the ice – would there be a crater or not? But what DID happen to the ice? It cracked and large pieces were pushed ahead and outward. His velocity was insufficient to create melting, but it certainly created cracking. Are we supposed to think that no cracking of the ice sheet occurred, beyond the Boslough models showing what was going on within the core of the maelstrom? Why would we think that was all that happened? Schultz’s broken ice sheet showed that large movements of such pieces would likely occur.

    If large pieces were pushed forward (from Saginaw, say) by an impact, then they would have plowed materials ahead of them much like an ice sheet, only with velocities that were magnitudes higher than ice sheets had or have. The evidence would look the same as ice flow, and we would not know the difference.

    End of speculation…

  49. Jim, if I wished and could go and search for the Clovis Layer in Illinois, embedded in hypothetical Late Pleistocene Coversands, I’d look first of all on the Geol.Map. If such a unit exists, my next step would be locating sandpits, and then I’d start visiting these pits.
    The layer here can vary in colour from very white, just bleached sand with a few dark speckles, to very dark where the speckles are predominant. In either case, white or black, the colouring is different from the bottom- and the topsand. Usually there are well-defined under and upper surfaces, defining a layer of 5 to 12 cms.

    H.

  50. Hi Han

    I don’t know what they’ll find in Illinois. But I’ve been wandering around northern Minnesota for a couple of weeks now; slogging around in giant bogs, digging in the mud, and even presenting myself as a human sacrifice to ungodly swarms of mosquitoes. All in the interest of turning up something that might be pertinent to our favorite hypothesis.

    Here, the late Pleistocene Coversands you speak of are not hypothetical at all. They exist in abundance. And I was able to find a very clearly defined exposure in a ditch on a construction site on the second  day I was here.

    I suppose I should give it a name. So we’ll just name it for the farmer who owns the place, and call it The McMillan Exposure.

    At the bottom you see the clays that were once the underbelly of the LIS. That layer goes down another 10 to 15 feet or so and ends at the bottom with a 3 to 5 foot layer of blue clays. But it’s the stuff that rests on top of the glacial clays that’s the most exiting to me.

    Note that we have 4 to 5 inches of dark debris, and glacial till above the grayish clays, above that about a foot of light colored coversands, and finally a very dark, almost black layer of sandy, peaty topsoil. There is also about 8 inches of gravely fill material on the very top that was brought in by the property owner to bring the surface up to grade for construction on the site.

    The dark debris layer between the clays of the LIS, and the light colored sands covering it all that were laid down as bottom sediments in Lake Agassiz is our “hypothetical” Clovis layer. And you’ll note that it is punctuated by a thin band of rusting particles.

    We have to wait for analysis of the rust to be positive it is extra terrestrial or not. But it sure looks promising.

  51. Re: The Tollmans,

    It was the usual case of combining together separate impact events, along with ignoring data that showed separate times/impacts, an adding in data that was not impact produced.

    Very similar to the mistakes made by Alain and Delair.

    It is too bad the Cambridge Conference no longer exists, as the first of the craters from the Holocene Start Impact Event would be publicly documented by now, along with geological features from several other impacts.

    My thinking is that with a really good clearing house the fossil phytolith series from around the world would also be correlated by with accurate 14C dates by now, along with the HSIE bediasite layers.

    Speaking about fascists, we have a lot of theosophist nonsense being promoted in the US right now.

    Also, did you ever meet and talk with Otto Muck?

  52. Dennis, let me know when you have the results of the analyses.

    EP, I have read Muck a long time ago, and now I tend to confound him with Spanuth, the nazi pastor who placed Atlantis at Heligoland. If I remember well, Spanuth tells that Odusseus when with the Phaiakiens heard the words deichos for dyke, and purgos for burg.
    That’s Germanic! And Sp. concluded that the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt were proto-Teutons.
    I haven’t looked up the words in Homer.
    It sounds ineresting, Odusseus as precursor of Pytheas of Marseille.

  53. Hi Han,

    I’ll write up a full report of this trip when I get done. My next study location may not be related to the YD event. In fact it’s probably much older. The geologic formations I’m going to see next are down in Texas on the Mexican border. While I’m there I want to see the Solitario formation in Big Bend Ranch State Park. The gradualists, and catastrophists have radjcally different explanations for the geomorphology there and I need to see it fo myself.

  54. Hi Han –

    It is interesting that only today, some 80 years after the events, are historians realizing that Nazism was a cult. How each German dealt with it or made their way through it is always interesting.

    Did you attend the S.I.S. meetings? Are they still active?

  55. Dennis and Steve; I read up on the Mickleson and Colgan paper Southern Laurentian Ice Sheet and found a chart giving approximate lobe locations at a specific time frame. (YDB) The Lake Michigan lobe had retreated to about the mid city point of Chicago. There would have been a smaller glacier lake at the end of the ice. If there was an impact in the Chippewa Basin the western side of the lobe most certainly would have broken off and been thrust against the nearest morraine probably plowing up a lot more debris at that point. I guess any impact on the sourthern portion of the ice sheet would have the potential to dislodge large bergs of ice as the ice is thinner and in decay.

  56. EP, nazism was an overgrown cult and a manipulation system, just as some so-called world religions – the missionary ones. To try forcing what you believe upon somebody else leads to mass murder.

    I have been to some SIS conferences. I have only contact now with Ian Tresman, and with a Dutchman I met there, Rens van der Sluys, independant researcher.
    What I don’t understand at all is that I figure in their Encyclopedia, but Peter Warlow does not. That’s nonsensical! Physicist and SIS-member Warlow was the one who with his tippetop model made sense of Velikovsky’s Earth reversals, which Vel. himself hadn’t understood.
    I have my own contribution there, from the 20-odd reversal myths Vel. collected, I jump to over 100. But that’s not published yet. Moreover, I have unearthed some geological arguments.

  57. >>It is interesting that only today, some 80 years after the events,
    >>are historians realizing that Nazism was a cult.

    Nazism was only one of two death-cults loosed upon the world in the 1930s-to-1940s.

    The Neo-Samurai death-cult of Japan was the other.

    Robert Pape’s analysis of modern terrorist death-cults from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view in his “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” is the closest the social sciences can bring themselves to look at the political-sociological issues of Death-cults.

    There are good career reasons academics of the WW2 Diplomatic and Military history schools won’t go there, because of the adverse impact on tenure that bucking the accepted narratives causes.

    Funny how that adverse career pattern repeats across the physical sciences with the YDB event, as well as the social sciences with WW2.

  58. Trent, thanks for the reference to the Pape book.

    But what I’m most concerned with are the movements that started full of hope and then deteriorated. The French Revolution turns into the Terreur; Marxism becomes Stalinism; Anabaptism, the left wing of the Reformation with such ideas as equal rights for women, soon became the horror of Munster under Jan van Leiden. (The cages high on the church tower in which the leaders slowly died are still hanging there).

    Michel Tournier in Le Roi des Aulnes calls it L’Inversion Maligne.
    I have just ordered the book Maschinenkinder by Christian Bloess, in the hope to find something in it on the change from XVIIIth century Enlightenment to post-Romanticist Positivism, which suddenly around 1860 took hold over the whole political spectrum.
    That was when the dichotomy Mainstream – Fringe was created, by the dogmatism of the academic mainstream.

    I know a bit about the Japanese movement; at Utrecht U. in the 1950s several students and 2 professors (Von Koenigswald, palaeontology, Van Bemmelen, economic geology) had spent WW II in a camp.
    But especially after seeing the Kubrick movie Paths of Glory, with Kirk Douglas, I promised myself to try to avoid being maneuvered into a Befehl-ist-Befehl situation.
    I didn’t always succeeded.

  59. I sent this to George Howard, but in case he missed it, I’d like to share it with everyone here.

    I recently watched a documentary by Peter Marsh titled “Cousins Across The Sea” which is about the origins of the Eastern Polynesians and their cultural/possible genetic relationship with the Northwest Native populations.

    In the third part of the film, comparisons are made between their various origin stories. Here’s a link to the specific segment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QSWvl5dSlpU#t=141

    The sky and the earth were the same color, no stars or sun could be seen, it would only lighten or darken. The documentary references the YDB Theory and ties it into the oral history of various cultures throughout the regions.

  60. Anyone out there know how the “jets” on a comet work? I got the impression that comets rotate as they travel forward. also if they do inded rotate do theyturn in just one direction or do others rotate opposite.

  61. Hello R. Harmon,
    The origins of Polynesians has been a fave subject of mine for a few years now. I was introduced to the alternative theory of their origins through Mr. Marshes website.
    As I have progressed through my own research, and through conversations with others, I have to take some of his work with a grain of salt.
    But you can’t throw out the baby with the wash water.
    So, that being said, here’s what I have to add on that subject,
    The austronesian/Polynesian split comes several thousand years after the YDB event. But that doesn’t negate the Polynesian/native American connection.
    The striking cultural similarities between Hawiian mythology and that of certain people of the island northwest is hard to deny.
    Also the other cultural aspects, show a deep connection, such as the use of mats for “currency” , sexually related mortars and pestles and canoe construction draw a definate link between these seemingly separated people.
    As I see it the proto austronesians/Polynesians had to leave their Taiwanese home lands around 8k years ago.
    One of the big questions is what caused them to leave the area? I believe it was volcanism, there are several well documented eruptions at this time horizion, but according to Saboba myth.a great captain called his people together to “leave this land” in a collection of canoes. The people rowed through the darkness, with only the singing from people in other canoes, being able to keep the group together as they journeyed east.
    The Saboba were an inland tribe, from the tehachapi area, that were linguistically related to the chumash of the southern ca coast.
    What I find so interesting is that there are no navigable water ways within their range, so how did they come by the idea of a great journey upon the oceans.

  62. Hi Cevin –

    While I am not intimately familiar with materials from the West Coast, my guess would be that the release of the glacial melt waters and rise in sea level around 8,350 BCE may have led to the migration you mention.

    One major question is the slower development of advanced cultures in that area, which may be tied to Pacific Ocean impact mega-tsunamis as well as the seismic tsunamis. Aside from the large impact mega-tsunami in the 1400’s CE, which appears to have led to the destruction of Nan Madol and the Chinese ocean fleet, I am ignorant of them.

    Good luck

  63. >>Aside from the large impact mega-tsunami in the 1400′s CE, which appears to have led to
    >>the destruction of Nan Madol and the Chinese ocean fleet,…

    Care to expand upon that?

    That China-Pacific impact tsunami event comes under the “first I heard of it” column for me.

  64. Hi Trent –

    You can find some of Ted Bryant’s original work on the Aboriginals’ Great Wall of Water in the Cambridge Conference archives.

  65. EPG,

    Based on my internet search, this link seems to be the current index for the Cambridge Conference:

    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html

    Using the Cambridge Conference search engine at the link above you find the following:

    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce053101.html

    COSMIC IMPACTS AND TSUNAMI: THE UNDERRATED HAZARD

    The following text is an extract from Edward A. Bryant’s new book TSUNAMI:
    THE UNDERRATED HAZARD, to be published by Cambridge University Press
    (publication c. July 2001).

    0 521 77244 3 Hardback £55.00/$74.95
    0 521 77599 4 Paperback £19.95/$27.95

    For more details and how to order, please visit the CUP website at
    http://uk.cambridge.org/earthsciences/catalogue/052177599X/

    Description

    In the past decade over ten major tsunami events have impacted on the
    world’s coastlines, causing devastation and loss of life. Evidence for past
    great tsunami, or ‘mega-tsunami’, has also recently been discovered along
    apparently aseismic and protected coastlines. With a large proportion of the
    world’s population living on the coastline, the threat from tsunami can not
    be ignored. This book comprehensively describes the nature and process of
    tsunami, outlines field evidence for detecting the presence of past events,
    and describes particular events linked to earthquakes, volcanoes, submarine
    landslides and meteorite impacts. While technical aspects are covered, much
    of the text can be read by anyone with a high school education. The book
    will appeal to students and researchers in geomorphology, earth and
    environmental science, and emergency planning, and will also be attractive
    for the general public interested in natural hazards and new developments in
    science.

    Chapter Contents

    Preface; Acknowledgments; Part I. Tsunami as Known Hazards: 1. Introduction;
    2. Tsunami dynamics; Part II. Tsunami-Formed Landscapes: 3. Signatures of
    tsunami in the coastal landscape; 4. Coastal landscape evolution; Part III.
    Causes of Tsunami: 5. Earthquake-generated tsunami; 6. Great landslides; 7.
    Volcanic eruptions; 8. Comets and meteorites; Part IV. Modern Risk of
    Tsunami: 9. Risk; 10. Epilogue; References; Index.

    >Much snipped<

    Is this your reference?

  66. Hi Han –

    http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/han-kloosterman-and-velikovsky-part-2.htm

    It is funny to watch how some people try to view me through a Velikovskian perspective.

    It is as funny as having manned Mars flight “enthusiasts” lecture me on dealing with the impact hazard, or George lecturing me on “success”, or D.C. lecturing me about air bursts, impact mechanics, scaling laws and geology.

    It is as though Clube and Napier do not exist and did not exist. “Denial” takes many forms

  67. Hi Trent –

    Yes, that book is essential. While you wait for it to arrive you may read some of his team’s worknotes in the Cambridge Conference archives, and later materials elsewhere on the web.

    While our host is interested in the Carolina Bays, he glides right by some of their later fill materials.

    Essentially, any sizable impact in the Atlantic Ocean has had an effect and will have an effect on major population centers in the US that lie along the east coast. See Dallas Abbott’s work in this regard.

  68. Ed,

    Regarding the mention of my recent trip to Minnesota; there is no confirmations required. When one is standing in a ditch in northern Minnesota a couple of hundred miles north of the terminal moraines of the Laurentide Ice Sheat, and looking at an exposure of the clays that were once the underbelly of the LIS, and those clays are topped off by the sediments of Lake Aggasiz, it does not take a geology major to recognize that the transition between them contains any materials scattered on top of the ice by the still hypothetical YD event. As for whether that layer contains any ET chemistry, or impact markers, the locations where specimens were taken from are well documented, we shall see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 
Subscribe for Updates
Latest discussions