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

Napier Paper: Giant comets and mass extinctions of life

91 Responses

  1. As usual Mr. Napier hits a home run on this paper.

    Mr. Steve Garcia, Do you have a reply to my comments from March 2, 2015 at 2:04 pm?

    The “BORG” kind of shut us down and I was hoping for one of your very insightful replies.

  2. Howdy Tony – I have always wondered about the flux of large comets in the inner solar system. This paper starts working that problem.

    If Clube / Napier are right about the Taurid Complex being the remains of a large comet captured in the inner system some 20 – 40,000 years ago and the progenitor of the Kreutz group of sungrazing comets are correct, we have the remains a pair of large fragmented comets operating in our short lifetimes. This would mean that they are a lot more common than most believe. Cheers –

  3. Hi agimarc, If the U.S. defense dept. pays Victor Clube
    for his ideas, then you can be sure he’s onto something.
    If you haven’t read Clube and Napier’s book The Cosmic Winter you should it’s an eye opener.

  4. Hi David and agimarc,

    Good news, you can read it for free! Go to SCRIBD and search for the cosmic winter when the page pops up click on the guys name that downloaded it, scroll down and Woops
    there it is. He scanned it in so you have to get used to the layout and page numbers.
    I had to rotate my laptop but it was well worth it. Do quick , these things have a way
    of disappearing, wink wink.


  5. agimarc and all Tuskers,

    Another book that is excellent is John Lewis’ Rain of Iron and Ice. Amazon has it used
    for $4.00 shipped to you!

  6. Another notch in my Drake Passage belt. Add Mt Ashmore and Drake Passage to the list of 34-35mya impacts and the idea gains strength.

  7. Tony –

    I don’t know about “insightful” but thanks…

    You asked, “Do you have a reply to my comments from March 2, 2015 at 2:04 pm?”

    Here is the part of that comment that included questions – two of them:

    “Steve, I read the WUWT debate with the trolls from last year, Bravo. Climate change at the YD what could have caused it? Then I remembered the Hubble telescope picture of comet schwassman- wachmann 3 breaking apart and all the dust and other debris that spread away from the main body and bingo, I got it. Who said all the dust had to enter the atmosphere?”

    The first one: Several things could have caused the climate change. It is all still WAAAAAY up in the air (no pun intended). Dust blocking the sun’s energy. Massive fires putting a lot of particulates into the air. Volcanoes some have speculated. A crustal shift is one thing I consider on the table, but no one else does. One thing is sure: The climate DID change. The YD issue started with what biologists noticed long ago. Sorry if that isn’t enough. I know the list here isn’t a complete one, too. But my brain isn’t working the best today…

    I think S-W breaking up has a lot to teach us, but it seems people are drawing different inferences from it – some I agree with and some I am not sure. As I recall, it seemed that over time the fragments line up behind what is left of the main body. And pretty quickly, too (strangely!). I think it is VERY odd that no one has written up a program for what happens to the fragments. The mutual gravity going on is VERY small, yet it seems most or all of the fragments remain gravitationally attached to the main body (and each other). This kind of breakup must happen a fairly lot, IMHO, mostly because of Jupiter, but S-W was out in ‘free space’ and still broke up. Have they arrived at any solid explanation yet for that breakup? I haven’t seen one.

    Second question: I don’t think anyone knows how much dust could have entered the atmosphere. If the velocity is greater than the escape velocity of Earth (at whichever radius out from the Earth), it would just go right on by, I assume. If not, it would get trapped in Earth’s gravity well and eventually or immediately spiral in and down. Most of such slow “dust” would become micrometeors and flare as shooting stars. Whatever doesn’t would not even be detected on Earth, IMHO, and we would never know if it went by or not.

  8. Tony – Thanks TONS for the tip on “The Cosmic Winter”. I went and got it. I already have a yearly thing with Scribd, so I got it in like 2 minutes.

    The book as I’ve found it is WAY too expensive, out of print, and too rare for a book of its importance. I think Napier and Clube should terminate their contract with the publishers and get it re-printed. If he can’t find a publisher, I can recommend one who would snap it up in a New York minute.

    I thought the opening was freaky, with them talking in 1990 about June 30, 1994 – only 16 days before SL-9 hit Jupiter.


  9. Oh, Tony, about rotating the laptop in order to read it, that isn’t necessary.

    1. SAVE the file to your hard drive.
    2. Then open it in Adobe Reader.
    3. THEN go to View > Rotate View > Clockwise.

    It displays nicely as a double width book. Change the Zoom to get it to fill the screen to your liking.

  10. done — just like that — also, if I may, I do have a favorite publisher (I just buy from them) — Inner Traditions — Vermont.

  11. Here i must gloat. Two years ago, i purchased a copy of The Cosmic Winter from a market seller on amazon. The books was listed as Good condition, and priced £23. You can imagine my glee when it arrived a few days later indistinguisable from a new copy. I may have even did a little dance.

  12. I bet these guys never figured they would be the authors of “rare books” (chuckles)

  13. Jonny –

    Yeah, I expect you did. And that sounds like a great price; the seller must not have done their homework, but that was good for you.

    I am just happy to have ANY copy of it. Woohoo!!

    Thanks again, tony!

  14. Steve,

    Or it could be the seller did do their homework and noticed that over-priced editions of a “niche” book were not selling, so went for a marked down price. I think I got it from a private seller, not a business seller, so there is that also if they were looking for to clear shelf space and quickly

  15. You can imagine my horror having loaned CW to someone, having it unreturned, and forgetting who it was. I know, I am an idiot.

  16. Glad I could help guys, and George if I lay my hands on a copy I’ll send it your way.
    I know how you feel I’ve been there and done that. Steve, thanks for the tip about the computer set up!

  17. Hi George,


    When the Tusk was on “vacation” I was checking around the google earth after seeing Pierson Barretto’s site COSMOPIER. Look at all those comet impact sites, just like in the good old USA. Hope they can date those and they are even mining them! There are
    thousands, tens of thousands who knows, big and small with water and without.

    Where are the craters they whine? Here they are, have some with cheese and crackers!

    Look south of the city craters with nice white quartz sand and see if you can find the
    giant comet skid marks (go east).

    Hope that lifts your spirits George, I think I know where your next field trip will be.


  18. This will be old news to Bill Napier and Ed Grondine, but I thought it would be useful for the rest of the community here to read something – anything – from a military person about the NEO effort, even if it is 15 years old news…

    From Bob Kobres’ Cambridge Conference posts:

    CCNet-ESSAY, 7 February 2000 “NEOS, PLANETARY DEFENSE AND GOVERNMENT – A VIEW FROM THE PENTAGON” – By Brigadier General S. Pete Worden http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce020700.html

    In this essay he presents, IMHO, a pragmatic and logical approach, I think. His thinking is incremental and realistic about what dangers we face at the moment and what can be done to keep it that way. He realizes and expresses that his is not the only thinking at the Pentagon. And he appreciates, it seems, how much the private sector space effort is helping and can fit into the effort.

    In engineering I used to approach new projects/problems with the saying, “What do I got? And what do I need?“, in terms of information, materials, geometry, production needs, etc. – especially what we DON’T know (which we need to remedy as early as possible). We never can start from anywhere but where we are, and we will never get there, to the finish, if we don’t anchor ourselves every moment in the NEW present, from start to finish.

    In order for us to mitigate our risk, it may or may not be absolutely necessary for us to know what the risk has been in the past. But if the past can help us to have some respect for the dangers that exist, then we should look at the past and see what has happened before. In doing so, we can NOT – IMHO – take today’s perspective and language and assign myth status to what we read or hear from still-retained accounts of fire and brimstone events. We at LEAST need to consider each history with the possibility that they are factual (if difficult to read the phrasings). The accounts may not tell us WHAT exactly happened or WHEN they happened – or even IF they all happened. The WHEN matters more than the what, IMHO, because knowing how often things hit is MUCH more important than what exact size or what exact places got hit (those that appear to have had it happen). The size and the place are random. The timing may also be random, to a large extent. But if Bill Napier and Victor Clube are right, the frequency has a pattern to it, and they think that the pattern can be derived.

    It is obvious from General Worden’s essay that the U.S. military takes the threat seriously enough to look into it further and KEEP looking into it. If that is the case, then books like Ed Grondine’s are a necessary source to help in assessing what dangers do exist. The past is a very good window into the future in this case. How FAR into the future can only come from efforts to understand what is out there and how often we’ve been interrupted in the past. If the frequency of impacts has been on the order of millions of years, our risk is small. The American academic school of thought is that this is the case. The British school of thought is quite different. Which is right? Until we have looked into it enough, how can we possibly KNOW?

    I am glad that people like Bill Napier, Victor Clube, and General Worden are on the hunt on our behalf. If it all turns out to be a tempest in a teacup, then at least someone looked into the teacup and recognized it was so. And if it is more, then we have that much more of a running start in order to keep from getting blind-sided. Having perhaps the wherewithal to “save humanity” and life on the planet, it would really be a stupid modern civilization to let itself get sent back to the stone age.

  19. Another tidbit from the Camridge Conference pages of Bob Kobres…

    One of the very real and very repetitive accusations against the YDB impact hypothesis is that no crater has been found. When Tunguska, such a famous atmospheric impact, has no crater, it buggers the mind that this could be the case. With the Earth Impact Database and with Tunguska, we frame the range of what constitutes a danger from above. The range may be expanded in the future, but for now, we already KNOW that sometimes a crater exists and sometimes it doesn’t.

    Add to that this from Andrew Glikson and the Cambridge Conference:

    CCNet-ESSAY, 14 April 2000 – DISCOVERY OF THE WORLD’S FOURTH LARGEST IMPACT, AND THE TALE OF TWO CRATERS (http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce041400.html)

    This is why, when a new bona-fide impact crater is found, adding to the
    170 or so known terrestrial craters, it makes news, all the more when
    the impact structure is 120 km in diameter – the 4th largest known on
    Earth. The present article summarises aspects of the discovery, as well
    as current progress in the study, of Woodleigh impact structure (Mory
    et al., 2000, Earth Planet Science Letters, 177, 119-128).

    Remarkable parallels can be drawn between Woodleigh and Chicxulub – the
    K-T boundary “dinosaur killer” of Yucatan. Both are buried under flat
    lying sedimentary cover, were detected through their Bouguer anomaly
    signatures as a series of concentric rings which sharply intersect the
    regional structure. Both have surface expressions of the outer ring
    fault, i.e. cenote water holes at Chicxulub and circular surface
    drainage at Woodleigh. However, unlike Chicxulub, where the central
    uplift collapsed, a central basement uplift is well preserved at
    Woodleigh. In so many ways the discovery of Woodleigh mimics that of
    Chicxulub, now well documented (see for example “Impact” by G.L.
    Verschuur, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 17-31). For over 20 years,
    first Robert Baltosser, and the Glen Penfield, both oil exploration
    contractors, battled company restrictions, an indifferent geological
    community, the Yucatan jungle, burnt core sheds and drill holes filled
    with pig manure, to prove the impact origin of the bulls-eye multi-ring
    crater which Chicxulub is.

    As for Chicxulub, it has taken over twenty years to establish the
    impact origin of Woodleigh.
    In 1981 oil exploration drilling by Layton
    and Associates (acting on behalf of the tenement holder, Eagle
    Corporation) near Woodleigh Station, southern Carnarvon Basin, east of
    Shark Bay, Western Australia, uncovered quartzo-feldspathic rocks with
    deformation lamella in quartz at a depth of about 200 metre.

    I draw attention to that 20-year effort to find not only Chixculub but also Woodleigh. The YDIH conference announcing to the world the hypothesis about the Younger Dryas onset impact event happened in 2007. That was not even a full 8 years ago now. Time and again, people deridingly ask, “But where is the crater?”

    We have 12 years left before the researchers match the 20 years for Chixculub and Woodleigh, a time span which rapidly diminishes. Oh, lordy, what will the nay-sayers say when that 20 years has come and gone, if “our guys” haven’t waved our magic wand and produced a cometary rabbit out of their collective hat? Will the skeptics gloat and make faces at the YDB team and tell them to go out and get a real job? My guess is that the date of 2027 will come and go without incident, but you never know – gloaters can be real wankers.

    But even if the 20 years pass and no crater is found, then what? Tunguska is 107 years and counting. The reality almost certainly is that there is a wide variety of types of impacts. Perhaps Tunguska and Chixculub are the outliers, the limits of it all. Even so, then that tells us that a crater does not need to be found; otherwise Tunguska would not get all the attention that it does.

    But we may found a THIRD possibility – a type of crater that we had not yet known about. I wish I had a dime for every scientist who has said about his or her field, when something unexpected is found, “Wow, now we have to reassess everything we thought we knew about this subject.” So for something NEW to come along is entirely possible and not to be unexpected. But prehaps it will be much like Chixculub or Woodleigh – so big that we couldn’t see the forest for the trees. After all, it DID change the climate for the worse – for 1300 years. And it DID seem to kill off most of (but not all) large mammals in North America – and perhaps beyond. So, whatever crater we are looking for may indeed be something on the order of Woodleigh’s 120 km. That would make it about the width of Lake Michigan, if no ice was covering the impact site to mitigate the surface damage.

    Since no one in the geological or astronomical communities are actually LOOKING (as was the case with both Chixculub and Woodleigh), one mustn’t expect much. But perhaps someone like Andrew Glikson will team up with contract oil geologists out on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or under the Great Lakes, and do the very hard work of jumping through hoops and over (another round of) raised bars, in order to convince the world that something happened.

    Somewhere along the line, the dam will burst, and then the frequency of impacts will be taken seriously, and then grant money might actually DRAW researchers to into this void, so we can begin to discover just what the past history of humans on Earth IS.

    The Earth Impact Database is at http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/index.html

  20. Tony – thanks also for the tip on CW. Set up an account and downloaded it. Have had Fire & Ice since it came out. Known John Lewis for a very long time. He is also working with Deep Space Industries among other things. Cheers –

  21. Oh well this didn’t work. I thought I could put 2 separate links on at the same time, guess not. Sorry for the waste of space and time.

  22. agimarc,

    Your very welcome! Had to laugh when I read your comment as I have miss named that darn
    book many times myself. I think it had to do with a song I liked years ago. The book is
    THE RAIN OF IRON AND ICE by John Lewis.

    Picked it up at a used book store and OMG! I had no clue and it opened a world I never
    knew existed and now with computers so much information at your finger tips. Who knew?

    Hey guys, thank George about THE COSMIC WINTER book, if he had not used SCRIBD I would
    not have found it.

    Thanks George!

  23. Hi Steve,

    I was reading a Victor Clube paper, Hazards from Space, and he mentioned our buddies the ESSENES. Clube called them astrologers. They were keeping an eye on space as things were really active with comets and whatever.

  24. I agree. Though maybe not the Essenes, per se. If you can pop a link here?

    I am convinced by what I’ve found that what are labeled by arkies to be priests are more often than not scientists and engineers. Such people would have engendered great respect. Forget the arkies’ belief that humans are still on their first rise from stupidity. If a pre-impact, pre-catastrophe civilization existed, then some of the survivors would have been engineers and scientists. And those would have done everything possible to keep the scientific knowledge going. And one reason would have been to detect and warn if other impactors were coming. In a solar system like Bill Napier and Victor Clube talk about, such warnings were a necessity. With much more cometary activity, someone who could calculate which comets ewre risks and which were not would be valuable to have around.

    Could such techies have continued until biblical times? I think so. All it takes is a teacher and student in each generation. Read The Book of Enoch some time. And don’t listen to the arkies and their utter mumbo-jumbo crap. That is all hubris about modernity, needing to pretend that we are the apex of all time. That comes from the religious sorts who started archaeology. It is AMAZING that the discipline had not weeded out such silly ideas long ago. Such ideas hold them back, and hold them back terribly.

    The above ideas are not proven. They are my current tentative conclusions, which are always subject to modification and evolution. I think they are every bit as reasonable as those of the arkies. All it takes is to stop disbelieving catastrophes and stop believing that the “savages” found by western Europeans were actually savages. 1000 years ago Central Mexico was more highly developed than Europe, but Europeans needed to label them “savages” so that they could steal their precious metals and their land. China was more developed than EITHER, and the Europeans considered THEM to be stupid semi-savages, too (simply because Europeans had developed guns). It is quite necessary to get off our high horse in order to admit that all of those megalithic sites did not get built by priests. Give me a break.

    As to the Essenes, Clube is on the right track.

  25. Jim –

    Breaking those two links apart, we get:




    Both work fine, when separated.

    I understand that they conclude what they conclude, seeing as they operate on the “planets don’t explode” meme. However, I see Saturn’s (and Jupiter’s and Uranus’ and Neptune’s) as remnants of an exploded planet having ended up in orbit around a large planet. I see the same thing here.

    Debris rings do not necessarily mean accretion, though that is what they read into it.

    The fact that there is a lot of debris in a solar system would mean that THAT system’s planets are also subject to comet and meteor impacts.

    I’d look for an asteroid belt in that system, too. In fact, I predict it.

    Where there is ONE debris ring in a system, it is only logical that other bodies (including the star itself) have debris rings, too. Probably ALL of the large planets in any such system

    I would also expect there to be impact craters all over the solid bodies of that system, since there had been so much debris flying around. Duh, just like our solar system. Seeing such cratering is a VERY long way from being possible.

    Cratering and debris rings go hand in hand.

    My basic premise still holds: The impact velocities between objects in such systems as ours MUST be destructive and not “accretionary”, due to the mechanical limits of the materials from which the objects are comprised. The principle of “Strength of materials” does not change, just because it is astronomy instead of geology or metallurgy or engineering. A bullet still hits like a bullet and does the same damage. And something faster than a bullet does even MORE damage. And damage is not accretionary.

    I know I am talking to the walls here, but, people, these simply are not physical laws that can be broken. Even the strongest materials on Earth cannot withstand the impact energies of what are held to be benign “kisses” between objects. They are anything BUT benign. The FASTEST, most energetic weapons we have are NOTHING, compared to those impactors in those rings.

    The record speed of a projectile is mach 7.5 – about 2.5 km/sec. The typical object in the solar system is going about 30 km/sec – 12 times as fast. And what is the objective of accelerating a projectile to mach 7.5? As a weapon of long distance destruction, by the U.S. Navy. Not accretion.

  26. Oops. Ended a tiny bit early there.

    If mere 2.5 km/sec is destructive, then how destructive is an object going 30 km/sec?

    There is a REASON that impact markers have the characteristics that they do. And that reason is that meteors or comets hitting things are very energetic and freaking destructive. Looking at ANY impact crater will tell us this is true. It is exactly why the YDB team looks for lonsdaleite and other such impact markers. They are looking for the DAMAGE that was done.

    WHY would anyone expect that impact craters are the result of destructive forces, while similar impacts in space are accretionary?

    That makes no sense at all to me.

  27. Does anyone know anything about the history and origins of astrology? Think it was just all made up by ‘priests’ or the result of long term records of observations? I know nothing whatsoever about astrology and was just wondering.

  28. Steve,

    Go to google books enter: The Mass Extinction Debates. Clube’s paper starts on page 152 – 168. Thank goodness they don’t cut it like they do some others. Get a load of
    Clube’s view of arkies LOL!!! He doesn’t hold back. The sad thing is we are going to experience exactly what our ancestors did those many thousands of years ago, we were warned. Can you believe the Mayas 5,000 years ago gave us a clue, then we have the Chelyabinsk impact less than 2 months after the end of the Baktun. Talk about timing!
    You do remember the 12-20-12 thing? No Woo-Woo stuff, pure observable science. But the arkies believe the sky gods will save us. So sit back have another brew and watch dancing with the STARS, yeah we will be dancing soon enough.

    And I am glad you seem to have regained your senses, because 3 of your previous comments( THE 3 SPECIAL ONES) were totally out of control, thought the ” BORG” had ASSIMILATED you. PLEASE STEVE DONT’T GO TO THE ARKIE SIDE!!!

  29. tony –

    Sorry, but for me Google books would only show up to about page 39. A search for “Clube” in that and displaying all “gets”, they display a little bit and say that that pages on that range are not available.

    The Dec 32, 2012 thing was a farce, from start to finish. Nobody ANYWHERE knew what to think of that, so everyone was speculating. There had also been the May 5, 2000 End of the World thing pushed by Richard Noone. Hahahaha – I was at a conference with David Hatcher Childress that weekend, that we ended up calling the “End of the World Conference”, and that day David put a call through to Noone and joshed him that we were still there. I think Ed Grondine was at that one, too, but maybe it was the next year.

    I have NO idea what you are talking about, me going over to the arkie side. How about a clue or two? I think you misread something and probably also misunderstand me.

  30. tony –

    Perhaps it might be a good idea if you and I exchanged emails. It seems much of what we might say between us is off-topic here, even if some IS. My email is . . . [email protected] . . . Please don’t give my email to the NSA. They might think I am one of those mitigators or something…LOL

  31. Steve G said —

    >>Sorry, but for me Google books would only show up to about page
    >>39. A search for “Clube” in that and displaying all “gets”, they
    >>display a little bit and say that that pages on that range are
    >>not available.

    I got the whole Clube article in the Google book preview I got.

    Steve, your result was an artifact of Google’s read of your past activity. Google thinks it more likely you will buy the book if you don’t read that article in its preview.

  32. The bedrock those two, and huge, new craters are in is something on the order of three hundred million years old.

    The problem is that there is no global impact layer of in the stratigraphic layer that’s the right age to account for them. And this is in spite of the fact that they’re bigger than Chixulube.

    I just love a good mystery.

  33. Steve; This accretion thing is driving me nuts. I understand that objects after a certain size are more than likely to get blasted apart that to come together but at some point before that they need to form. Now the people that say there is accretion at all times can give a reasonable explanation for accretion up to a certain point then its; yeah but what happens when—? Now Steve says that the contacts are way more likely to cause further destruction at any point in the process and that makes sense too. So my pea sized brain is on overload trying to reconcile these two concepts that are seemingly trying to work the same idea from opposite ends. Something must hold everything together to exist as is and that is the million dollar question. What starts the ball rolling and when?? I can see small objects from space crashing into the planet and adding to the mass, not enough to make any difference and I can see a massive object knocking us back into the stone age if we are lucky and losing mass into space for future impacts here or elsewhere. I guess these are 2 different concepts that can’t be reconciled at this time or anytime in the forseeable future.

  34. Trent –

    No idea how Google would have a buying pattern from me, since I have never brought from them before.

  35. Jim –

    I feel your pain. Not enough is known by you and me yet. Not much we can do except be patient and see what else becomes known. . .

  36. >>No idea how Google would have a buying pattern from me, since I
    >>have never brought from them before.

    Google algorithms apply to everything you do on-line.

    I have literally done the same search twice in a row with Google and gotten different results because of other activity I did between searches.

  37. Barry,
    Where did astrology come from? “Cosmic Winter” goes into it a bit in chapter 1. It devolved from Sumerian/Babylonian astronomy, which was most concerned with divining whether the heavens were about to rain “cataracts of fire” and other catastrophes upon the earth, which apparently happened from time to time. It was their science, which we call “omen astrology” – but very unlike the astrology we know today. They were the original catastrophists, whose world view reigned until the Greeks threw over their cosmology and replaced it with a mechanistic universe replete with epicycles and crystal spheres, and the notion that the sky was harmless … and Babylonian science was relegated to myth, as it is regarded today. It’s just one reason why CW is a rewarding read.

    If you are determined to buy “Cosmic Winter” the book, get it from Amazon.co.uk, where the price is (currently) £50 x 1.53 = $76.50 plus shipping vs $120 on Amazon.com. I just bought Baille’s “New Light on the Black Death: The Cosmic Connection” for £18 (vs $46). For books by UK authors, it’s always a good idea to check prices there.

  38. Hi Noel,

    When reading New Light on the Black Death, you may want to hold in your mind that the chapters discussing the ice cores and hence ammonia signals are incorrect. Baillie at the time thought The GRIP cores to be correctly dated and the GISP2 core to be incorrect. We now know that the GRIP ice core is wrongly dated by seven years in the first millennium, see here http://clim-past.net/11/105/2015/cp-11-105-2015.pdf

  39. Guys – Buying CW from Amazon – Clube and Napier get $0.00 from those sales. And it costs an arm and a leg.

    There is an alternative. It doesn’t put any money into Clube’s or Napier’s hands, but it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. I can email it.

    I for one am willing to PayPal Napier whatever he thinks is a fair amount, if he believes we are undercutting his legitimate market. Since the publisher doesn’t print it anymore, there IS no market that will return money to Napier and Clube. But we can donate to them.

  40. Noel –

    I very much appreciate the Bablylonian info. I have been busy and haven’t had much chance to read far into CW.

    I completely agree (for what it is worth) about the earliest need to “map the skies” and keep looking. After the period of frequency of impacts and airburts, ANY sane society (or post-society) would take the skies seriously and try to look for ways to tell what was coming, what was a threat and what wasn’t.

    In the book “Uriel’s Machine” the machine was in “the utter north”, not so far from Napier and Clube, up in the Orkneys. And what did it do? Well, in the book they almost exclusively talk about “gates” through which the Sun rose. I recognized it as a device to see comets at dawn and dusk, coming “out of the Sun”. I don’t know the exact method (but I DO have a good idea), but with it they could (IMO) tell which ones were coming our way and which weren’t.

    The arkie idea (pushed onto the rest of science) that kings and emperors would pay good money for someone to “read the stars” and such is absolutely ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of those of the past. It is patently clear that there had to be a very real and tangible reason for the importance of such “diviners”.

    Arkies have a simplistic and insulting view of the past – that no one could possibly have had any science then and no one had any common sense – and that everyone would listen to people spouting magic. It is insulting on so many levels. And NOW, whenever arkies run into anything that is over there heads (and there is a LOT that fits the bill), they label them “ceremonial” or Ritualistic” and blow it off, right at the beginning. And then that decision is repeated over and over by the arkies who follow.

    Arkies simply have the wrong mindset about the past, so to them everything was mumbo jumbo. It IS – to the arkies. To the people of the past it was deadly serious stuff.

    Only the neo-catastrophists have a clue. But they are so much in the beginning stages of learning what actually happened. The arkies hold the podium. It will be a LONG time convincing the world that the arkies have been wrong since day one.

    Thanks the heavens for Napier, Clube, Shoemaker, and the others who are slogging along and laying the groundwork.

  41. I love it when everyone accepts the simple ” formed in stellar supernovae explosions” claim.

    Escape velocity of supernovae – 10,000 km/s

    Braking power of interstellar space – 0.00000000000 km/s


    How did stuff flying across interstellar space slow down when it got to our solar system? Down to about 20 – 70 km/s.

    Taking 9,900+ km/s out of the velocity of objects takes a LOT of energy. Where did it go? What did the braking? (Hint: Not the Sun. As objects approach the Sun, the Sun’s gravity actually speeds them UP.)

    Trust me – I don’t know the answer to this. I have no clue. But me not knowing doesn’t make their hypothesis correct. Theirs sinks or swims on its own merit or lack thereof.

  42. Hi Jonny,
    Thanks for he article reference. It will definitely help in reading the book and likely clarify dating difficulties elsewhere.

    Hi Steve,
    According to CW, far from giving fanciful interpretations of celestial events, the Babylonians just recorded what they saw. The Greeks established what became the uniformist view, and it has taken us 2500 years to come back around to what the Babylonians knew all along. A lot of ancient history and mythology is beginning to make more sense.

    I’m going to dust off my copy of “Uriel’s Machine” that has been sitting on the shelf for years. Glad to hear it is worth reading.

    I have learned a lot from the discussions here. The Tusk and Cintos are great resources and are IMPORTANT. I’m still going though them. It has made me want to see for myself. I live in NC near the Sandhills region, and have made several trips east to visit some of the prominent bays.

    The hypothesis that the sand deposits underlying the CBs flew in from the NW all at once is definitely not intuitive. A few thoughts:

    • It seems quite a coincidence that the sand would conform exactly to the flat Coastal Plain of NC and end just at the Piedmont where the terrain becomes more hilly – exactly as you would expect an ancient beach to do. Why does the sand not extend further inland?

    • Since the CBs are concentrated along the coast, it seems that a good deal of the impacting material went into the ocean and no doubt created great waves. There could have been other impactors directly in the ocean as well. Could the sand have been deposited by such waves, and the CB incursions were somehow created soon thereafter?

    • By the hypothesis, the sand would have to underlay all CBs from NJ to Fla for the CBs to be created by steam bubbles in a sand slurry. Is the sand pervasive beneath the bays?

    • If the sand came from Saginaw, it should be straightforward to do a chemical match of the sand to the blasted sandstone. Has that been done?

    • If much of the sand went into the ocean, the volume of the sand deposits on land should be a good deal less than the volume of the blasted sandstone in the Saginaw crater. Has that been calculated?

    These are just some naive questions. My background (BS mathematics) is in computer software. I doubt that I will be able to contribute to the technical discussions here, but I will certainly be following from the edge of my seat.

  43. Noel –

    Lots of questions! Good!

    I can take a stab at answering some of them… The discussion is open on these, so don’t just accept anything I say here. Replies and other POVs are welcome.

    • Sand conforming to the flat coastal plain of NC? First, they extend from NJ down to Alabama. This isn’t authoritative, but my understanding is that IF sand was deposited on steeper slopes, then erosion had plenty of time to erase them. Lots of bays have erosion through them.

    • Sand extending further inland… How ejecta flies and what patterns they make upon landing is not well covered in the literature. Not that I’ve seen. My understanding is that it is lofted in an arc and lands where the trajectory takes it – no closer and no farther. See the latter part of the next response.

    • It has been the opinion of most people who’ve addressed the possibility of ET causes that some might be in the ocean. There are even ones near Myrtle Beach (if I recall correctly) that overlap the shoreline. I’ve done an interesting look at the data, and now I am not so sure that many went into the ocean, though. The devil is in the details, though… I am currently working on something about that for George that hopefully he will post.

    • As to those which DID go into the ocean – certanily SOME did – yeah, what kind of waves would they have created? My impression is that the effects would have been local, but maybe not. Some bays are over 7 km long, so if ones large enough to do that hit offshore, I would not have wanted to have been strolling on the beach…

    • Right – the sand does not lie UNDER the bays, from what we’ve seen here. C Moore here has looked at them, doing transects, and what he has shown is the sand draped over the bay rims, following the contour. That may not always be the case, but we haven’t seen anything to say otherwise. IMO, Moore comes up with conclusions that I think are contradictory to what his transects show.

    • Yeah, if the sand came from Saginaw, it should be born out in the chemistry. If the sand came out of Saginaw Bay it may be difficult to do assays. But first there needs to be someone with bucks to fund such an expedition.

    • As to total sand volume, it appears that no one has studied that. That would be a helluva big study. As to what hit in the ocean, the Gulf Stream would have had its way with much of it. I wonder if any of it shows up in the material studied and classified as ice-rafted debris farther north.

    In case you missed it, the sand in NC is such pure quartz that they just did it up and directly turn it into glass, without purifying it. It is up to 10 meters and more in some places.

    Also, there are bald cypresses found lying sideways in the sand – and the wood is still usable and valuable after tens of thousands of years.

    In case you are wondering, there are 43,900 Carolina bays, counting 592 out win the Great Plains. That number comes from Michael Davias’ LIDAR work at Cintos. He has separated them into 6 types, based on their shapes. They are not all elliptical, though they are all rounded. And, as Davias has shown, their patterns are related to their N-S locations. (That last is something that the aeolian and steam bubble people have no possible explanation for.) The 6 types are:

    (22,631) bayCarolina bays
    (16,103) baySouth bays
    (3,672) bayBell bays
    (829) bayShore bays
    (592) bayWest bays
    (73) bayOval bays

  44. WARNING:

    I am gonna rant on a bit here about the planetary accretion thing again…

    Based on the title, I thought, “Wow, someone actually doing experiments to discover things in astronomy.” And it was going really well… Until the last sentence.

    At onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB090iB02p01995/full I found this Abstract:

    Laboratory simulation of planetesimal collision: 2. Ejecta velocity distribution
    Waza et al 1985:


    Velocity distributions of fragments produced by low-velocity impact against rock were obtained from high frame rate photographs. Cylindrical projectiles of mild steel (S15CK) and two kinds of rocks (tuff and basalt) were impacted against spherical rock targets at velocities from 50 to 400 m/s. Target destruction initiates with longitudinal splitting, which is analogous to destructive uniaxial static compression. The ejecta velocity component normal to the incident direction (“lateral component”) differs for impacts into basalt (∼20 m/s) and tuff (∼5 m/s) targets. The lateral component of kinetic energy of the fragments is shown to be controlled by the total strain energy stored before fracturing begins. For equivalent impact energy per unit target mass, ejection velocities of larger fragments from low-velocity impacts are slightly higher than velocities from high-velocity impacts; in addition, ejection velocities relative to the impact velocity for low-velocity impacts are much higher than those for high-velocity impacts. Therefore, impact velocity and not the imparted energy density is suggested to be an important parameter for classifying these low-velocity collisional events. The ejecta velocity distribution is also greatly influenced by differences in relative mechanical properties between the projectile and target. Ejecta velocities from rock-rock collisions are much higher than velocities from steel-rock collisions even for equivalent impact velocity. This implies that the mechanical properties of planetesimals have played an important role in the early stages of planetary formation.

    Right up till that last sentence, all they talked about was obliteration of the target material… “Ejecta velocities”, “The lateral component of kinetic energy”, “Target destruction”.

    And then? “…mechanical properties of planetesimals have played a part in the early stages of planetary formation.


    HOW is destruction in any way planetary formation?

    It’s like studying the shades of black rocks and how black they are, and then closing with, “…blackness has played a part in the whitening of rocks.”

    *** BTW, I totally agree with the part about the mechanical properties of impacted bodies having a part in what happens with impacts at the velocities of impacts out in the solar system. HOW an impacted body breaks apart at impact IS governed a lot by the mechanical properties of the materials. How could it NOT? Any idiot knows that.

    I also agreed re the rock-rock impacts having higher ejecta velocities than steel-rock impacts. Rocks are crystalline and brittle. They shatter, and the shattering is governed by the lattices of the crystalline structure within them. Shattering is like snapping. (It’s kind of like styrofoam which doesn’t bend much before it snaps, and the snap is like a bent spring that pops loose.)

    Steel, on the other hand, is crystalline, too, but malleable – ESPECIALLY MILD STEEL! WHY in the world would they use MILD steel – which is CRAP steel compared to most alloys? Maybe they are trying to simulate iron meteors. But if they are, they should use IRON, not mild steel or any steel.

    *** And BTW, the velocities used here are called “low-velocity”, and they should be. Almost no collision in space will ever be as slow as 400 m/sec or 50 m/sec.

    So, though this paper 30 years ago did empirical work, IMO the results are kind of worthless, because they used the wrong materials and they also used velocities that ere far too low. WAAAAY different things happen with changes in materials and changes in velocities.

    Heck, they probably didn’t even freeze the dang things to simulate outer space temps, either.

    Surovell would have loved these guys.

  45. One more issue on those velocities (If I am repeating myself, please stop me…)

    Even those ejecta velocities mentioned in the abstract – 20 m/sec and 5 m/sec – are for planetesimals, so high that they probably exceed the escape velocities of even meteors the size of meteor 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (which is 4.3 x 4/1 km).

    The probe Philae’s first bounce off of 67P was calculated to be about 0.38 m/sec (0.85 mph), and the probe then came within 15% of reaching escape velocity and never coming back.

    Ergo, when really slow ejecta can leave a 4.3 x 4.1 km “planetesimal” at about 0.45 m/sec because of the effects of a collision, which was only a 1 m/sec impact (about 2.2 mph), how is any impact of smaller objects supposed to “accrete” any of the two bodies together?

    From an engineering standpoint, none of that makes sense. Any faster impact than 1.2 m/sec and Philae would have been lost forever, after its 10-year flight.

    And yet impacts at several THOUSAND meters per second are supposed to have accreted planetesimals together.


  46. >>New horizons has found that pluto is producing a tail of nitrogen ions
    >>that are being stripped out of the atmosphere by the solar wind.
    >>Technically that makes Pluto a comet.

    I wonder the sensor that detected nitrogen ions has been used on other space probes?

  47. Don’t be surprised if Earth is also trailing some nitrogen ions. “Earth’s magnetic field stops its atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind” [Wiki]

    Hell, I am quite surprised that Pluto even HAS an atmosphere. It has to be awfully thin.

    Venus sometimes has a comet-like tail, but they phrase Venus’ tail this way: “The planet Venus sometimes looks less like a planet and more like a comet, scientists say.http://www.space.com/19537-venus-comet-atmosphere.html

    So, Pluto’s solar wind induced tail makes it a comet, but Venus’ only makes it “like a comet”. Tsk tsk tsk… The people who want to make sure everyone thinks of Pluto as a non-planet really are laying it on thick. I am not holding my breath till they declare Venus a comet…LOL

  48. Whoops, forgot to add this —

    “The comet has a black hydrocarbon crust overlaying ice, smooth icy ‘seas’, and flat-bottomed craters containing ‘lakes’ of re-frozen water overlain with organic debris”

  49. Phys.Org seems to be a site for touting researcher’s jumped-to conclusions, premature conclusions and immature mental processes. I say ‘immature’ because in almost ALL of the areas of research they write about, the science is only in the early stage where evidence is being collected, and so the science is in flux – and not well-enough developed to actually see the bigger picture. To me, that is a state of immaturity. NO offense intended, except that I wish that they would stop prematurely ejaculating about what the new evidence means. They are almost invariably wrong, anyway. What the really mean is that the new evidence fitted into the uniformitarian POV would SEEM to fit in such-and-such a way. The evidence-gathering phase of any scientific topic is early in the continuum of that topic, and thus conclusions are always based on too little information and too much leaning on existing paradigm-think.

    Some articles on planetary and cometary formation/development:
    Do comet fractures drive surface evolution? http://phys.org/news/2015-08-comet-fractures-surface-evolution.html
    with hi-res image of the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko showing cracks. There searchers interpret them as fracturing from solar heating. I look at the same cracks and see fracture planes from cooling of molten basaltic (or somewhat similar) rocks, such as at https://natureinfocus.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/p1380203redpointrocksongrandmananwest8.jpg?w=848

    While rocks DO fracture from solar heating and cooling on the surface of Earth, the fracturing is normally at a scale tending toward microscopic – and not very deep. (I could be wrong on that, of course.) I would doubt very much if fracturing on the scale shown on 67P is possible, due to the depth implied of heating implied by the scale of the macro cracking pattern visible from Rosetta.

    The entire article is rife with speculation piled upon speculation – conclusions upon conclusions, and all with caveats. Meaning basically that they don’t really know, and there is really no fundamental reason for the article. They are WAAAAY early in their study of Rosetta’s 67P evidence. But they MUST keep the attention on NASA and ESA and don’t let the public forget. Public forgetting is the way to lose funding. So, they believe that they have to keep on waving their arms and hollering. Their near-term careers depend on ongoing attention. And the ever-present, “This will require further study!”

    For example: “Monitoring for changes in these fracture systems after the current perihelion phase, and running models to simulate the evolution of the comet over time, will enable us to test our various hypotheses for fracture formation,” adds Ramy.

    Just a laugher in a way, but 67P in the article is said to have a “6.5 year orbit around the Sun”. Comets are said to have been created in the solar nebula phase over 4 billion years ago. (OR created in the Oort cloud. Yet the Ooort cloud where there is even less gravity and more vacuum than in the inner solar system. Right. Igneous or metamorphic rocks forming where there is no gravity and no pressure.) If it was not in the Oort cloud, then in 4 billion years a 6.5-year orbit would mean ~615 million perihelions – about 150 million orbits per billion years. I daresay that if there had been that many orbits, and if the solar heating was as much as they assert, the entire surface would be not only regolith but dust. And as the surface micro-cracked, the surface would recede, bit by bit. Science’s own “nearly infinite time” for geologic and astronomical processes would entropy the comet out of existence. It would be not a dirty snowball but a dusty dirtball – and a strengthless one, at that. It would just be a lot of dust. And if comets Schwassmann-Wachmann and SL-9 and the Encke progenitor are typical, as soon as pieces break up and float away, they would string out along the orbit like a string of pearls, not stay close together in one aggregated, accreted clump. Schwassmann-Wachmann was very instructive, since it broke up far from any gravitational tides. And what happens to one like Schwassmann-Wachmann, at the scale visible from Earth, has to be happening also at the micro level as well.

    But on a more basic level, the solar heating idea is CRAP. 67P’s perihelion is at 1.2458 AU. Assuming that heat energy diminishes as the cube of the distance (correct me if I am wrong), then the solar energy hitting 67P at perihelion is (1/1.2458)^3 = about .52 times that of Earth (1.360 kW/m^2), or 0.703 watts per square meter. Pardon the language, but that is not enough to pee on. Those rocks are not going to be exposed to enough energy to crack them. Aphelion is 5.68 AU, so the LOW heat portion of the orbit has about (1.36 x 1/5.68^3) = 239 watts per square meter – about three 75 watt bulbs per square meter. (A square meter is about 11 sq feet.) The delta is .703-.239 = 0.464 kW/m^2. Not enough to pee on. Given that with rotation any surface is exposed to the Sun only about 1/2 the time, the energy density cycling isn’t enough to crack a rock. On the scale of astronomical motions and energies and masses, 239 watts, 703 watts, and 464 watts is just NOTHING. That is like saying that the heat from a flashlight’s bulb would heat up a car interior when you got stuck in a blizzard.

  50. I was going to mention other articles. Maybe I will. That one took a lot of time… so maybe and maybe not.

  51. And BTW, here we go again – Proportion, Proportion, Proportion…

    It is REALLY necessary to keep proportion in mind. Always. To always have in the back on one’s mind, “Is that sufficient energy? Enough force? Enough pressure? Enough temperature? Enough relative velocity? Enough mass?

    All this started in my head with the back of my mind asking if there was enough gravity and pressure and temperature to make olivine in the Allende meteorite.

  52. Steve; Those three conditions are the real basis for any good ideas. In reference to the Allende meteorite the answers are no, no, no, maybe, no, and no. so that leaves the next question: Where did it come from?? Is the base rock igneous or metamorphic? I haven’t read up enough on it to even venture a guess at this point. I’m going to use the 3P’s on My pet project to see if it helps to clear some of the fog that’s arisen lately. Thanks for theconcept to work with.

  53. Perhaps an alternative method for estimating the threat to Earth…

    My Theory on the Purpose of Higher Consciousness in Humans https://grahamhancock.com/mezzatestaj1/

    No, I don’t agree on what the main theme of this article is, which seems to be “Let’s all sing Kumbaya” and that will prevent an impact from wiping out humans on Earth.” I would HATE for us to all start chanting and hoping we don’t get hit by THE BIG ONE, and it squashes us like a fly. That is a really dumb idea for an experiment, with all our lives on the line.

    But the article has this terrific map entitled “Bolide Events 1994-2014 (Small Asteroids that Disintegrated in Earth’s Atmosphere” at http://grahamhancock.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/mezzatestaj1_html_12b9c63d.jpg

    It even separates the day airburst with the night airbursts and codes for energy levels of the individual bolides.

    If we map such objects coming in long enough – or simply database them, I guess – we should begin to see the ratios of them by size – in REAL WORLD terms. That is better than mere models and mere estimates of quantities of objects “out there”.

    It is not the ones out there that are important. It is the ones that arrive HERE.

    BY compiling data on the bolides, we MAY be able to one day get an estimate on what the flux density of them IN OUR ORBITAL toroid that we pass through. (The Thanks to WISE, we have counts on those we can SEE, and where they are and what their orbits are. But that is only down to a certain size, and those that are visible in the EM frequencies we choose to search with. Below that size we are more or less blind. When we find half a million above that threshold, we know that there are many multiples of that number out there, too, that we can’t see yet.

    But if we can generate a reliable curve for size>quantity, we can estimate the ones that are large enough to kick our butts but still too small to see (so far).

    I think that by counting the bolides and logging their sizes, we can compare that curve to the “outer space” estimates and data, to see if our outer space estimates have similar ratios. The map on that web page only goes back to 1994 (the year of Shoemaker-Levy 9). If it can be taken back earlier, then the added data can give us a better estimate ratios and quantities. Or at least an alternative method, with which to vet the existing NASA numbers.

    One of the things is to see if there are ways of finding out if we are missing any, with WISE or with other existing methods. Do the dark ones out number the visible ones? Is the N-size ratio curve correct? Etc…

  54. I was looking for a better post to make this comment, but really didn’t find a good one.

    Quite randomly tonight I picked an episode of the Sherlock Holmes in New York series titled “Elementary”. I chose one with the odd name “Dead Clade Walking”. Lo and behold, its topic (as Wiki describes it) “featured a Nanotyrannus skeleton found “significantly above” the K-T boundary”.

    In the episode my ears perked up when Tommy Lee Miller’s Sherlock character stated, “A clade is a group of animals which has survived an extinction level event. It is widely acknowledge in paleontological circels that the extinction of the dinosaurs was brought about by a comet striking the surface of the Earth approximately 66 million years aago. The foundation of this belief is a layer of rock beneath the surface of the Earth which has an abundance of rare metals supposed to be common in comets and asteroids – called K-T Boundary….”

    To this his partner, the female Watson in this version, responded, “Yeah, I’ve heard about that somewhere. They only find dinosaur fossils BELOW the K-T boundary, right?”

    “Apart from a few very rare exceptions, yes. It stands to reason. If the dinosaurs were rendered extinct by the comet which created the K-T boundary, you couldn’t very well find their bones above it, right?”


    “Maybe. A new generation of paleontologists seized on the FEW fossils found above the K-T boundary, to suggest that some dinosaurs survived the comet’s impact… They call their theory ‘Dead Clade Walking’, and it is enormously controversial in the field.”

    “Okay, so maybe dinosaurs lived longer than we thought. So why is that controversial?”

    “…Dead Clade Walking has yielded a bumper crop of conflict.”

    “…I’m not sure what it has to do with our investigation.”

    “The rock nanotyrannus was found in – I decided to take a closer look at its composition, and Gaye [their geologist] has confirmed that it seems too have certain geological features which would suggest that it was buried above the K–T boundary.”

    End of dialogue.

    All of this brought to mind the so-called pygmy mammoths on Wrangel Island off the NE coast of Siberia, as well as the pygmy mammoths on California’s Channel Islands. Every time http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com posts about the YDB, a contingent there says, essentially, “The mammoths didn’t go extinct at the YDB; they survived until about 36000 years ago on an island off of Siberia”.

    And they are right. But I don’t buy their argument, because isolated groups could certainly have survived what happened elsewhere.

    I looked up “Dead Clade Walking” (DCW), and it even has a Wiki page. The term is a take-off on the movie “Dead Man Walking.” DCW refers to a small group of animals which survive an extinction level event but die out before long. The paper in which the term ‘Dead Clade Walking’ was introduced is at Survival without recovery after mass extinctions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123034/pdf/pq1202008139.pdf

    Dead Clade Walking seems to me to be an exact description of the mammoths on both Wrangel and the Channel Islands. Those mammoths were a Dead Clade Walking. They survived. Their environment/ecosystem allowed them to live, but not to thrive – only at a level that meant dwindling numbers and eventual extinction of the isolated survivor groups.

    Think of it like a “bottleneck event”, one in which a population is severely reduced but manages to survive and grow its numbers back up – except one in which the bottleneck gets tighter and tighter until it eventually pinches off the reproduction altogether eventually.

    In Jablonski’s paper he only talks about the big extinctions of millions of years ago. And he talks in terms of the Dead Clade Walking living for a million years or so. So, the mammoth extinction doesn’t fit, because they only lived for about 9,000 years, not a million years. (Actually, I think a DCW lasting 9,000 years is a more rational idea. Any animals whose offspring lasts for a million years seems quite unlikely to have THEN had its numbers reduced to zero. That is a LOT of generations – WHY would the extinction comet still play a part in fauna life maybe 30,000 generations later?

    In any event, we have a new term for those pygmy mammoths now. The pygmy mammoths were a Dead Clade Walking., even if the YDB wasn’t one of Jablonski’s five big extinction level events. They survived but were on the brink for a good while, but eventually they could not manage to stay alive any longer.

  55. It’s interesting…

    I’d commented this recently:

    Steve Garcia
    August 17, 2015 at 8:05 pm
    When you think about it, the Overkill hypothesis was always wedded to the Clovis First dogma. When that went down in 1997, Overkill was toast. It’s just taking some time for the world to wake up to it.

    And then the previous comment here, about “Dead Clade Walking”. (Thanks to the Sherlock Holmes TV show “Elementary”.) It was/is about species that have only a small group left after an extinction level event, and who don’t know it yet, but their kind are doomed.

    In a way, the two go together.

    The Overkill Hypothesis of Paul S. Martin survived the overthrow of the Clovis First barrier, but, from that moment on Overkill has been doomed, but they don’t know it yet.

    The argument about Overkill was that all it took was the arrival of insatiable human hunters and 33 genera of megafauna were doomed, and doomed very quickly. The Clovis technology lasted about 300 years, tops. Martin’s story went like this: People arrived, people raced across N America, people killed every large animal they laid eyes on, and the megafauna were wiped out.

    But it didn’t happen like that. Humans had been here for at least 2,000 and perhaps even more than 9,000 years. But in those millennia the animals did not get hunted to extinction. Meltzer himself did a paper pointing out how the extinctions were in a very short time, and that range of time included the Younger Dryas onset. What were the humans doing all that time, if they weren’t wiping out big animals? They were eating other animals, smaller animals. Meltzer, again, has papers on this subject, too. He writes that, YES, humans were eating all SORTS of animals. Meltzer points out that mammoths were not their sole prey, as Martin had asserted (and just about everybody but me swallowed, hook, line, and sinker).

    In a way, Meltzer should be on our side. But he seems to be skeptical about just about everybody’s ideas – not just ours. Ask Paul Martin about that. I swear it was he who wrote a paper about the timing of the “ice free corridor”, showing that it did not open up until about 8,00 years ago – FAR too late for humans to have come down from Beringia to wipe out the megafauna just before the YD onset. 3,000 years too late.

    Pretty much the entire thing we’d been told about Clovis coming over Beringia is turning to crap. They had pieced it together, with the arrival of Clovis, the ice-free corridor, the ice sheets, the extinctions – and one by one, all the parts have fallen apart. (Many scientists still adhere to those, though, and all our kids are still taught that bogus crap in schools all over the USA – if not all over the world. And it simply isn’t true.)

    It’s been a sort of mild-mannered chaos since 1997 when the Monte Verde site in Chile was vetted by a large group of archaeologists and proven to their satisfaction that Monte Verde was older than Clovis. The house of cards did not fall all at once. We are still seeing it fall apart, and much of that collapse is happening behind academic’s ivy-covered walls. Meltzer and Surovell both argue that Clovis man was far different than Martin’s sociopathic Clovis animal murderers. Clovis man actually killed and ate small game and deer! Oh My!

    It isn’t showing up on the covers of DISCOVERY Magazine, but it is happening. The Clovis Overkill is in full Dead Clade Walking mode, and it is happening out of the public eye – just like executions in prisons (the origin of the movie “Dead Man Walking”) are being done mostly out of the eye of the public.

    But DO be aware that both Clovis First and Overkill are just as dead as “former” death row inmates. Even if they won’t admit it yet.

    Dead Overkill Walking…

    The extinction event was Monte Verde. Clovis First died that day. The Overkill hypothesis persisted, but its legs were cut out from under it.

    Some day within OUR lives Overkill will die, as a result of the death of the Clovis First dogma.

    What is there to replace it? Hahahaha – We know!

  56. I am going to pull out “Proportion Proportion Proportion.

    Wiki starts out Dead Clade Walking [DCW] with:

    Dead clade walking also known as “survival without recovery”[1] refers to a clade (group) of organisms which survived a mass extinction but never recovered in numbers, becoming extinct a few million years after the mass extinction or failed to recover in numbers and diversity.”

    I agree with it all, except the “few million years” aspect. The proportion is all wrong.

    Think of it – megafauna species now have life spans measured in decades, usually. They are fertile in about 5-15 years, and the reproduce pretty much when they become fertile. Let’s conservatively estimate their generations as about every 15 years plus 22 months gestation – put it at ~17 years. In ONE million years, then, there would be about 59,000 generations. “A few million years” would, say, be 3 million years, making the number of generations available 176,000 generations.

    It is inconceivable that a NEW species would take even 59,000 generations to establish itself, much less 176,000 generations. If even the lower number of 59,000 generations are the number that a species is “on the bubble”, then almost all species would never be born. Add to that that for animals smaller than elephants or mammoths it would mean considerably more generations.

    Something besides simply low numbers must have been going on. This is besides an extinction event. This is AFTER, when the species is in a DCW situation.

    If a species dies a MILLION years after an extinction event, there is no reason whatsoever to blame the extinction event itself. By a million years later, the species should have long since re-asserted itself into the ecosystem.

    Proportion-wise, the 8,000 years for the pygmy mammoths to die out is much more in keeping with proportionality. 8,000 years is “only” 470 generations.

    But think about 470 generations. In humans that would represent almost 12,000 years, based on ~25 years per generation. That is the time span from Göbekli Tepe till now. It is almost all of the years since the YDB. If humans died out NOW, would it make any sense to blame proposed the YD impact?

    Obviously not.

    There must be other factors. The most obvious candidate would be a changed environment after an extinction event.

    Interestingly, the Wrangel Island pygmy mammoths (if they were pygmies at all, which may not be true) lived on a frozen island (at least since the YDB). If it was modern elephants living there it would be so cold that the elephants would not survive very long at all. 470 generations seems an impossible feat of reproduction oin such a land where no tree or bush lives for more than 2-3 moths a year.

    The arctic environment itself would constitute a “second extinction factor” for a Dead Clade Walking species. But if it WAS, then the obvious “NEXT QUESTION” must be what? Right – Why didn’t that same environment not kill them off before?

    So, either there is a THIRD factor or the environment changed. If an extinction event that killed off OTHER megafauna species was not sufficient to kill off a DCW species, then the species SHOULD HAVE recovered, if their previous natural ecosystem was still functioning the same. (That would imply one thing and one thing only: That the post-YDB environment was NOT the same as the pre-YDB environment.) The previous natural ecosystem was the Bölling-Allerod, when temps peaked somewhat near to the Holocene’s climate. Prior to that was a SIMILAR climate to the YoungerDryas cold stadial, the “Last Glacial Maximum”, which lasted from ~30,000 years ago to ~19,000 years ago. The mammoths on Wrangle survived THAT climate for that duration – about the same duration as the pygmy mammoths survived after the YDB. BUT: The other mammoths didn’t make it out of the WARM Bölling-Alleröd.

    That last fact obviously does not match up with any of the other facts. Why would mammoths be dying off when the climate was approaching and nearly equal to today’s climate (i.e., a warm climate)? Did the end of the LGM make ALL megafauna into N America Dead Clade Walking clades for the duration of the Bölling-Alleröd warm period?

    Perhaps? Perhaps not? If so, what kind of mechanism could even be proposed? Too much warmth? After all, after the end of the YDB the rest of the Holocene was warm. Yet on the other hand, elephants today are found in environments FAR warmer than the climate at Wrangel Island, as well as warmer than almost any part of the U.S. In addition, an Egyptian hieroglyphic pictograph shows an image of what to all intents and purposes looks exactly like a mammoth, but only about 4-5 feet tall at the shoulder. So, clearly mammoths can live well enough in warm Egypt. So why would warm N America or frozen Wrangel island be too warm? The easy answer is that, No, maybe the climate of the warm Bölling-Alleröd was not the problem for them.

    But maybe the LGM itself reduced their numbers to not quite sustainable levels? If so, then why would they have been able to survive it and live not only INTO the Bölling-Alleröd, but also THROUGH its 6,000 years? With the better climate, wouldn’t they have thrived? Why would they have made it right to the END of the warm 6,000-year period and then die just as it is getting cold?

    No, it just doesn’t seem to hold water that the climate alone was the culprit. None of that makes sense with climate as the sole killer, not with them dying off right when the cold began again. They should have been stronger.

    But IF the Dead Clade Walking conjecture is included, then the LGM might be seen as the first extinction “event” – one that weakened the megafauna – and then with their numbers at low levels the Bölling-Alleröd may POSSIBLY not have been long enough for them to recover, and then when the YD began, IT became the second extinction event, the one that finished off all of the megafauna EXCEPT the two island refuges of the mammoths. That all COULD make sense, but only if one can picture the megafauna being SO debilitated by the LGM that they teetered TOTALLY on the brink 19,000 years ago.

    For ALL the 33 or so species to have been on the edge, climate-wise at ANY time seems outrageously ridiculous statistical nonsense. Why would Saber-Toothed Tigers in Los Angeles or Mexico City be at risk the same time as Mammoths in the utter north of Siberia or in Michigan? No one with half a brain could see such a possibility as feasible. There is no evidence that the climate in Mexico City or L.A. was frigid. Even if the coming ice of the YD shifted temps colder by several degrees C, it wouldn’t have taken ALL the mammoth regions to equally cold levels.

    So, even though SOME aspects of climate (alone) might point to climate as being a possibility, the overall history that includes the 6,000-year-long Bölling-Alleröd cannot be made to make sense – even with TWO cold whammies, the LGM and the YD onset. The two are simply too far apart, with too many generations for the megafauna to be able to recover. Even in 6,000 years there were about 350 generations – certainly enough for them to procreate and eat heartily and to thrive. They should NOT have been weaker at the END of the Bölling-Alleröd than at its beginning. They would instead have been stronger, meaning that a second whammy would have hit when they were 350 generations stronger.

    So, for the OTHER 33 megafauna species Dead Clade Walking does not seem to make sense. It MIGHT make sense for the two island pygmy mammoth populations, though. It is only ONE species. It is conceivable to think that their locales and isolation COULD HAVE spared them the immediate doom of the rest of their species. And it is conceivable that the YD onset – whatever its non-climate cause – could have been the extinction event that put their island populations into a bottleneck situation that was so squeezed down that they weren’t going to make it. The known history supports making a connection between the YD onset and the subsequent Dead Clade Walking situation: Their numbers globally dropped to nothing everywhere else, plus they only lasted another 8,000 years. That seems to exactly match the Dead Clade Walking scenario to a ‘T’. Especially if one takes out the “few million years” timing and replaces it with a much shorter time span.

  57. One more thing…

    The Dead Clade Walking situation for the island populations of pygmy mammoths would have been 1300 years of Younger Dryas cold and then over 6500 years of warm Holocene warmth. THAT 6500 years is essentially the same duration as the Bölling-Alleröd warm period.

    The Wrangel Island mammoths are the ones who survived the longest – 60% of the way through the Holocene – even though they lived well above the Arctic Circle with its super-cold climate. If cold was what did them in, then why would the Channel Island mammoths in California have died off first? It is (at the least) counter-intuitive, if not downright illogical. Yes, the numbers on the Channel Islands could have been lower, perhaps a LOT lower. And the climate is a near desert climate, so the mammoths not only were in a region with impeded plant growth, but also the islands there may have had long droughts like the one in California going on now. Being isolated on a small island, it would only take one extended drought to starve them to death.

    No matter WHAT others may think, the YD impact hypothesis seems to be the only scenario that could fit both the instantaneous characteristic of the YD onset and have had the ability to kill the megafauna in so many climate zones and in such a vast area.

    1. Climate fails for the various reasons argued in the previous comment.
    2. Overkill by Clovis has absolutely NO explanation for mammoths dying off in far northern Siberia at the same time as in then temperate N America down all the way to Mexico City.

    What else IS there? Nothing. By a process of elimination the cause of the YD onset is whittled down to a very large impact. So even without the lab test results on the impact materials the YD is left standing as the only possible cause. When put together WITH the impact materials, the three lines of evidence – the pygmy mammoth history plus the materials examinations, and then plus the process of elimination – support each other. SOMETHING caused the extinctions and it happened right at the time if the instantaneous climate shift.

    If not climate and not Overkill, what is left? Nothing.

  58. Pardon my being almost the only one commenting at present. Sorry ’bout dat.

    I believe someone here commented not long ago about a large number of scientific papers that had to be retracted from one journal. The number that comes to mind is 60 or so papers.

    Here is an article about a parallel, but realted, issue: Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 As is common, all we have is the Abstract.

    How it applies to what we’ve got with the YDB and with the history of comets and asteroids is that AT LEAST THE PSYCHOLOGISTS CAN EFFECTIVELY TEST THE IDEAS TO SEE IF THEY DO HOLD WATER OR NOT.

    This for the most part is not possible with much of astronomy and even geology. Not only can others in astronomy, geology, and modern physics not often be able to try to reproduce the work done by the original scientists, but often there is simply nothing to test, nothing to replicate. If you read enough papers you will begin to find that, there is about 1-5% fact (often from someone else’s earlier work) and a lot of conjecture. HOW THESE PAPERS GET PUBLISHED IS BEYOND ME. Most of it is in the interpretation. In that, astronomy, modern physics, and geology are not far at all from psychology and have much more in common with psychology than with chemistry or Newtonian physics, the really hard sciences. When we get to cosmology, forget it – there is absolutely no requirement that empirical science even applies.

    That is one reason why the YDB team continues to impress me. Not only did they start out by trying to work out the most physical evidence they could find and do massive amounts of REPLICATABLE lab tests – true empirical science. And the seem to even INVITE others to test their results, by specifically spelling out the methods and protocols, so that others can both vet the results and question the methods and protocols.

    And it is also why it is so egregious that Surovell and Pinter et al continue their onslaught against the lab science, and do so with nothing more than their different interpretations – often going to great lengths even to FIND some perceived loophole in the YDB team’s work.

    Interpretations are not empirical science. When the Royal Society was founded in 1666, Robert Hooke and Newton were the driving forces behind it. Hooke’s specific aim was to get completely away from the many hypotheses and interpretations and to make everything empirical. He wanted scientists to actually physically come in and SHOW the Society their experiments and results, right there on the stage. Hooke and Newton hated each other with a passion, however, and Newton eventually out-office-politicked Hooke, and Hooke’s aims were essentially discarded. Hardly had the Society meetings began before non-empirical science was allowed in the meeting hall. Boom! Down came the guillotine on science as solely empiricism.

    Because of this sand-bagged start, it doesn’t take much to become a science, as long as it doesn’t include astrology or palm-reading. Psychology – the weak sister of the article linked to – is one of the so-called “soft sciences”, along with psychiatry and sociology. But from my readings I would at the very LEAST look to include archaeology, paleontology, deep Earth geology, astronomy, climatology, quantum physics, and especially cosmology.

    As far as I can tell, NONE of those does any actual lab experiments, with their ability to actually MEASURE things quantitatively. We are all TOLD that such experiments exist, but for the most part the lab results we hear about are them contracting to OUTSIDE labs to do C14 tests or other dating methods.

    The only things they quantify are spectra of stars and comets and such. And as soon as they have the data interpretation rears its ugly head and twists the data to suit the researchers’ pre-conceived ideas.

    These pre-conceived ideas are EXACTLY what underlies the MANY, MANY “discoveries” that force the scientists to discard their notions and incorporate the new, conflicting evidence. “We will have to go back and start over again.” “We will have to see how we can fit this new evidence into our current theories.” NO! NO! NO! If the evidence coming in contradicts your theory, then the theory is not correct – and it doesn’t just need some tweaks; it needs to be re-thought out from fundamentals!

    Psychology and medicine are very fortunate in that replication actually is encouraged and occurs on a regular basis. This allows them to find out which “studies” or ideas are full of sh*t, to discard them, to put a blot on scientists’ records, and to just forget about those crackpot frauds and/or incompetent scientists.

    The another sciences mentioned don’t have that luxury. When someone has a bogus idea, mother of GAWD, the publish and gain STANDING int their communities. Not only can they not DEVISE experiments with which to test their ideas, no one ELSE can devise ways of proving their ideas wrong. There is an increasing voice being raised in these sciences by the few empirical scientists left on those fields, who are screaming bloody murder that, “IT IS NOT SCIENCE IF YOU CAN”T COME UP WITH EXPERIMENTS WITH WHICH TO TEST IF THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG.” And that includes those who would try to replicate anyone else’s work – if it can’t be replicated, it ain’t science. To be replicated, there had to have been enough information about how the results were arrived at. But when the results are simply interpretations of a tiny bit of evidence, how do you replicate an interpretation? So – AS IN HOOKE’S DAY and which Hooke correctly perceived – what you end up with is people who side with one idea or another simply because they believe that the interpretation is correct. You get factions, arguing over the words – instead of directly doing the experiments and measuring and reading the micrometers and thermometers and pressure gauges and spectral analyses and recording the numbers that fall out. Facts don’t need interpretation or factions arguing for them or against them. Facts are themselves TRUE; no interpretation will add or detract from the truth of them.

    Interpretation is EXACTLY the same as SPIN. Interpretation is a POLITICAL quality, just like in Washington D.C. Interpretation is all about putting the best light on SOME facts and trying to cover up the existence of other facts, facts that are equally true. (No fact is ever wrong.) Think lawyers and trying to win cases.

    Because of the lack of testability in those non-hard sciences mentioned, ideas in those fields have gotten entrenched – for DECADES – that will never be able to be shown to be right or wrong. Some or most of them will likely be DEAD ENDS, but it may take MORE decades for us to even KNOW that to be the case. When careers are measured in terms of 3-4 decades, then, entire careers will be invested in wrong theories, wherever those wrong theories exist (and they DO). And if you think the intrigues of the medieval Italian courts were hot and heavy and treacherous and vicious, well Hell hath no fury like a scientist who is told his career has been for naught.

    So, Jim, it not just Proportion, Proportion, Proportion. It is also Replicate, Replicate, Replicate. If no one can replicate someone’s work, then the work was CRAP in the first place. Oh, it MIGHT be true. But “might be true” is not what science is about. “Might be true” is for churches and political rallies. When science devolves to “might have been” it has given up the ghost.

    So, if astronomy and geology had such replication capacity, IMHO, the sciences would be so much better served. And, probably more correct. Expect in future decades for much of what is currently thought to be true to go by the wayside.

  59. Steve; P,P, and P go hand in hand with R,R and R. You really can’t judge proportion without replicating your results otherwise it’s just jumping to conclusions. One would think it’s just common sense but: Guess what’s missing??? That rare commodity, COMMON SENSE!!

  60. Steve Garcia,

    You might want to read the following.

    There is a new book out trying to keep the Human-mammoth overkill hypothesis going by adding the wipe out of the Neanderthals on top of it…which may wind up killing that hypothesis regard Clovis Man.

    AFAIK, Clovis man didn’t have any dogs, let alone “wolf-dogs,” to hunt Mammoth with.

    Did Dog-Human Alliance Drive Out the Neanderthals?

    With the help of wolf dogs, early humans out-hunted—and outlasted—Neanderthals.
    By Simon Worrall, for National Geographic


  61. Trent,
    You have opened a giant can of worms now, evolution of domesticated dogs is a seriously sticky wicket. There are lots of papers out there making all kinds of contradictory statements about how dogs affected modern human development.
    A few things to remember, depending on which study, all dogs descend from a dog(not wolf) in central east asia 32kya(tiawanish area) or all dogs are descended from west Asian wolves<10kya(rubbish) or all dogs are descended from a Siberian wolf,25kya?.
    am at work so cant go into any great detail, except that canid domestication is far older than is given credit for, and happened at several times and places, separately.
    One theory has been put forth that, the gravettians, those dog using mammoth hunters, successfully domesticated canids on several occasions in widely separated times and places, only to lose all animals during extreme privation, and start over in a new area with a new breeding stock.
    There is circumstantial evidence from HSN burials in spain, that they might have semi domesticated the wolf, a HSN young adult was buried with the remains of a wolf.
    And in a very obscure paper, from about 20 years ago, researchers in Alaska indentified one specimen of what they called a "short faced wolf".
    This canid, found in what would have been beringia, sated to about 60-70kya and exhibited all the signs of domestication.
    A wider more robust jaw set, a shorter snout and shorter blunter teeth, all of these are seen in early domesticated wolves, as the diet changes from hunting or scavenging prey, in which the entrails and muscular meat are the primary meats, while domesticated canids are given the scraps of the hunt, ie bones with which the meat has to be scavenged, leading to the changes in jaw, skull and tooth morphologies. Bigger blunter teeth and wider jaws for crushing bones.

    Then there is the nagging question of who had dogs in central cal 17kya.
    Another interesting thing about predmosti, is that the humans ate mammoth, while their dogs ate caribou, both nearly exclusively.
    Here is a very good discussion on ancient dogs
    and another discussion on dogs and Neanderthals

    Here is something to chew on, one of the areas proposed to be a place of origination of dogs central east asia, is also the area that has modern humans with one of the highest levels of Neanderthal ancestry.

  62. A little more on dogs,

    “The new research published today evaluates the relationship of a 33,000 year old Siberian fossil to modern dogs and wolves based on DNA sequence. The researchers found that this fossil, named the ‘Altai dog’ after the mountains where it was recovered, is more closely related to modern dogs and prehistoric canids found on the American continents than it is to wolves.”
    and a new paper

    “Dinets’ overview shows that domestic dogs are descendants of two interbred species: a small extinct wild dog of Asia and the grey wolf. Different breeds have different proportions of wolf blood, and that can explain a lot about their personalities and behavior.

    There are four to five wild species of Canis in North America, according to the overview. In addition to the well-known grey wolf and coyote, there is a secondary wild population of the domestic dog known as the Carolina dog, plus a few populations of hybrid origin with different proportions of wolf and coyote genes. Two of these hybrid populations, the red wolf of the eastern U.S. and the Algonquin wolf–also known as the Eastern or timber wolf–of southeastern Canada, have already evolved into full species. What is still unknown is whether they should be considered two different species or one species with two living subspecies.”


  63. Trent –

    Thanks! I can’t get to that article just now. Out of town and busy. First reaction, though:

    The Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” (CMMM) killed off Neadertals has only one fact behind it – Neandertals aren’t around anymore. The rest is all total speculation and always has been. Unlike Clovis mammoth kill sites, there are NO CMMM-Neandrtal kill sites. And even WITH the 12 provable CM-Mammoth kill sites, that one is dead in the water. What does that do to the CMMM-Neandertal kill scenario?

    The reason that the headline ends in a question mark is SPECIFICALLY because it IS speculation. And dammit! speculation in science is just f-ing WRONG. These popular science writers and editors are the WORST of the worst, in terms of getting anything science out to the public. It would be better if it were done by the universities themselves. Those sycophants have no place in the equation.

    The fact that about 200 years on, they are still asking how Neandertals died out should be seen as evidence that they don’t know what they are DOING.

    And being professional guessers is not anything I would ever side with.

  64. CevinQ –

    Wow, thanks for the thorough info on dogs.


    “A few things to remember, depending on which study, all dogs descend from a dog(not wolf) in central east asia 32kya(tiawanish area) or all dogs are descended from west Asian wolves<10kya (rubbish) or all dogs are descended from a Siberian wolf, 25kya?"

    REALLY? It is bad enough that they have humans "evolving" in less than 200,000 years. WAAAY to short a time! Now they have dogs developing into hundreds of distinct breeds in 32kya or 25kya????

    WTF kind of science is that?

    If ANY of that is what they think, then they need to change their job titles to "Professional Speculator".

    And it's not like Darwin's birds out on the Galapagos, which varied because of differences in the environments. WHY would domesticated dogs have varied environments? They eat, shit, and grovel before their human masters. Only a few actually worked, and most of the work was the same – hunting. While hunters might change over time (but shouldn't within 32kya), true domesticated dogs – Pekinese, etc. – should not change. Unless specifically bred for traits, as now.

    This is mind-bogglingly odd information. If ANYTHING it should be turning Darwinism on its head. For MANY millions of years, evolution is slow, plodding, and nothing happens. But on every side, the paleos and arkies claim that HUMANS – and now dogs – changed vastly over only a few tens of thousand of years.

    How stupid can these yokels BE?

  65. CevinQ –

    Wow. That Altai dog thing….

    Altai is SPECIFICALLY the only place in central or east Asia where haplotype X is found. X is found in the Orkneys, the Irooquois, the Druse in the Middle East, in a small part of the Caucasus, and one other place (which my brain can’t recall just now). And NOWHERE IN BETWEEN.

    This is THE most mysterious thing in science – or should be. HOW does a DNA haplotype skip over ALL the intervening distances and in ALL these directions? It is as if someone had airplanes – and airplanes that didn’t land anywhere but at the end terminations.

    Now, one things about X haplotype that science will never allow into the discussion is that in the 1930s and 1940s the psychic Edgar Cayce talked in several score of his “readings” about Atlantis and its demise. He said that – interesting in its own right – that the Atlanteans KNEW their destruction was coming, and that they had time to send out groups to what he labeled “safe lands”. And guess where Cayce put the Atlantean “safe lands”? VERY CLOSE to where X haplotype is found now. And how did they get there? Cayce specifically said that the Gobi (Altai) group had “airships”. Well, if ONE of the Atlantean evacuee groups had airships, then one would guess that all of them might have.

    Just saying…

    And now they put MODERN dogs in the Altai, too. WAAAY freaking cool.

    But one interesting things about Cyce and his human history:

    At the time he said it all, it was all so far out in left field that it, of course, was written off as silliness. But as time has gone on Cayce’s account has been the direction which the new evidence points to, more and more. And this direction is exactly in the OPPOSITE direction of where the arkies’ thinking was then. Cayce’s becomes more and more like what the evidence shows, and the arkies (especially the arkies of the ’30s and ’40s) has proven time and time again to have been wrong.

    Science move closer and closer to Cayce every decade.

    When I read Cayce, his stuff was internally consistent (which to me is necessary to get my attention). it was out in left field, even in the late 1960s when I read it. But it was interesting enough for me to keep it in the back of my mind, wondering if any of it would prove out in any way, or if it would – like almost 100% of New Age “information” – be shown to be total crap. Amazingly, next to NONE of what he said has been shown to be categorically wrong.

    As opposed to what archaeology’s “facts” and interpretations were – in the ’30s, or the ’40, or the ’50s, or the ’60s, ora nytme since. It is the ARKIES who keep moving the goalposts.

    And when people move goalposts, I lose respect for them.

    Cayce is long since dead – before I was ever born. So his people have not been able to move any goalposts.

    When the term “Altai” comes up, my ears perk up. Cayce called it “Gobi”, but the Gobi is immediately adjacent to the area we call Altai (and I believe he talked about the safe area being in the mountains of the Gobi – which IS the Altai region). The X haplotype there drops off VERY quickly with distance. Even the “next-door” neighbors barely have any X.

  66. The Orkneys (also an X region) is to me remarkable for two reasons. One is the ruins at Skara Brae, right on the sea coast and having such “modern” things built in as dressers/shelves in bedrooms. One is the Book of Enoch, in which a Jewish guy in the Middle East was taken somewhere in “the utter north” and shown some large, laid out thing on the landscape which he was instructed in how it worked. It was standing stones with “gates” between them that they explained represented seasons. Near to Skara Brea (within about 6 km) is the stone circle called The Ring of Brodgar (one of about 1,000 stone circles in the British Isles). See this image for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1665789?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com

    I THINK that these stone circles will one day be shown to not only be solar astronomical sites but also observatories used for – among other things – observing comets whizzing around Earth. If Bill Napier is correct about the Encke progenitor, the early millennia after about 30kya (the time of the Altai dog) was a time when MANY fragments were hitting Mars, the Moon, Venus, Mercury, and EARTH. (As well as Jupiter?) It was a time – for a LONG time – when the number of shooting stars was immense, and some of the shooting stars not only made streaks but also hit the surface. Humans LIVED THEN, and it would have freaked them out. And eventually they would have learned enough to begin to figure out that SOME hit and some don’t. I think the stone circle at Brodgar – of nowhere else – was used to tell which could hit and which couldn’t. A useful bit of knowledge in a time of impacts.

    Such abilities were far ahead of their time? Humans are resourceful, and their brains then were as big as ours. Neandertals had even bigger brains. Resourcefulness, big brains, a NEED – all that is necessary for someone to begin to learn from their observations – and devise ways of observing even BETTER. After all, many of the early observatories in Europe and China were done with big courtyard-sized devices in the gardens of wealthy dabblers in science. Until precision telescopes and such were made possible by technology, big was the ONLY way to get precision in astronomical observations. Big as in 20-50 feet across or more. And something 100 meters across could be even MORE precise.

    All that is necessary for us today is to respect the intelligence of our forbears. The principles do not change – logic, need, experience, understanding of the tools at hand. Basically all you had to be was an engineer before engineering was codified and modernized – being practical and undertaking projects for specific reasons. Humans have always done this. And we always WILL.

  67. The overall plan of Skara Brae: http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/articles/skarabrae/skarabraeGP.png

    A view of a room at Skara Brae: https://skarabraeorkney.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/skarabraeorkney.jpg

    I put it to you that that plan and that room were done by people who KNEW what they were going for, who KNEW what shelving was, what ovens were, what passageways were, what BEDS were – what COMMUNITY was. They knew, and the went out and found materials that they SAW how to include them into a livable – if crude – home and community.

    I think those people had already LIVED in such a community, before they ever arrived at Skara Brae. And that they were trying to replicate what they knew.

  68. Steve G,

    Regards this —

    “The Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” (CMMM) killed off Neanderthals has only one fact behind it – Neanderthals aren’t around anymore. The rest is all total speculation and always has been. Unlike Clovis mammoth kill sites, there are NO CMMM-Neanderthal kill sites. And even WITH the 12 provable CM-Mammoth kill sites, that one is dead in the water. What does that do to the CMMM-Neanderthal kill scenario?”

    One doesn’t need to physically kill off the Neanderthals in large numbers to out compete for the same food supply.

    Neanderthals could handily win every physical confrontation with “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” when they had near even numbers and still lose out as a species. Starvation and lower birth rated from the “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” plus dog alliance food competition could easily have turned Neanderthal’s into another “Dead Clade Walking” species.

    Once there were too few Neanderthal’s compared to “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man, they would simply have been another cave dwelling big game species for CMMM.

    Heck, once there were too few Neanderthals, Cave bear competition for living space would have been enough to do them in without CMMM.

  69. CevinQ,

    So did Clovis man have dogs or not?

    Those Science Daily articles you linked too was so filled with conservationist pleadings about North American canine species that it provided no evidence either way.

    This passage —

    “Human domestication of dogs predates the beginning of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, but when modern dogs emerged as a species distinct from wolves is still unclear. Although some previous studies have suggested that this separation of domestic dogs and wolves occurred over 100,000 years ago, the oldest known fossils of modern dogs are only about 36,000 years old.

    The new research published today evaluates the relationship of a 33,000 year old Siberian fossil to modern dogs and wolves based on DNA sequence. The researchers found that this fossil, named the ‘Altai dog’ after the mountains where it was recovered, is more closely related to modern dogs and prehistoric canids found on the American continents than it is to wolves.

    They add, “”These results suggest a more ancient history of the dog outside the Middle East or East Asia, previously thought to be the centers where dogs originated.”

    …even implied some sort of North America to Eurasia transport of dog genes.

  70. Steve & Trent,

    “Regards this —

    “The Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” (CMMM) killed off Neanderthals has only one fact behind it – Neanderthals aren’t around anymore. The rest is all total speculation and always has been. Unlike Clovis mammoth kill sites, there are NO CMMM-Neanderthal kill sites. And even WITH the 12 provable CM-Mammoth kill sites, that one is dead in the water. What does that do to the CMMM-Neanderthal kill scenario?”

    One doesn’t need to physically kill off the Neanderthals in large numbers to out compete for the same food supply. ”

    A couple of things to consider, we did not “kill off” the Neanderthals, they became us and we became them. All non Africans and some east Africans, north Africans are Eurasians so they fall into the first category, have Neanderthal ancestry. Indigenous central Mexicans have the highest levels of HSN ancestry followed by indigenous Tiawanese. Modern humans inherited the ability process and store fats from HSN, we also inherited type2 diabetes from HSN.
    Oase 1, an early modern human from Romania, approx. 40kya, had a HSN great great grandfather.

    From Dienekes anthropology blog

    “Several important conclusions of the discovery that Oase1 had a Neandertal ancestor 4-6 generations before his time (37-42 thousand years ago):

    This is a smoking gun that modern humans interbred with Neandertals, following up on the publication of the Ust’Ishim and Kostenki-14 genomes; these two had longer Neandertal chunks than modern humans, from which it was estimated that their Neandertal admixture happened more than 50,000 years ago, roughly what one gets when looking at Neandertal chunks in modern humans alone. The Oase1 has even longer Neandertal chunks, and Neandertal admixture happened in its very recent past.
    So, it seems that Neandertal admixture was not a one-off event but is bracketed at least by the period 50-40 thousand years ago and happened in at least two places: Europe and the Near East.
    The fact that the earliest European sample (N=1) has a recent Neandertal ancestor indicates that Neandertal admixture in the earliest Europeans cannot have been extremely rare or non-existent; if it were, the chances of finding one with the first try would be extremely low.
    It is unlikely that Neandertals were killed off by modern humans immediately after the arrival of the latter in Europe, as the Oase1 is dated well after the arrival of modern humans to Europe.
    Modern Europeans don’t seem to be particularly related to the population of Oase1. After one substracts contamination and Neandertal admixture, what is left over is actually closer to East Asians than modern Europeans. But, it’s equally close to East Asians and European hunter-gatherers. This can be explained if modern Europeans have ancestry from the mysterious “Basal Eurasians” via the Neolithic farmers.
    Why did the Neandertals (and the significantly-Neandertal admixed AMH like Oase1) disappear? My bet is on the Campanian Ignibrite eruption.”

    Link to original paper

  71. Trent,
    The question of Clovis having dogs is very much up in the air, while a later “Clovis” site in Washington has yielded dog remains, I don’t think earlier and more s eastern sites have yielded any dog remains.
    But a hastily excavated site a few miles north of me yielded dog remains dating from 17kya to 23kya. Unfortunately the site was unearthed during freeway construction, and only a weekend was allowed to dig the area, before being covered in 3′ of concrete.
    One of those papers alluded to an extinct “Asian dog” that was crossed with a wolf. That is a very significant statement, because it implies a very early domestication event separate from the domestication of the grey wolf.
    That relates to an interesting situation among modern dogs, there are two basic kinds of dogs, dogs with low hanging straight tails(wolf) and dogs with upright curly tails(“Asian dog”), and all freely interbreeding feral dogs will eventually end up with yellow to tan fur a wide short snout and a curly upright tail.

  72. Steve,
    The MtDna HG x question is pivotal to the understanding of human dispersal.
    As you noted x is found among certain Native American groups, and certain old world populations.
    A few points are of significance, HG x is found among the Druze, an isolated highland population, it is found in the Caucasus’and the Orkneys, as you noted.
    So, here is where it gets interesting, the earliest examples of salmon fishing is from a Neanderthal site in the Caucuses.
    All of the places that have hgx also have salmon runs. All of the north American native Americans that have hgx, are traditionally salmon fishermen.

  73. Trent –
    One doesn’t need to physically kill off the Neanderthals in large numbers to out compete for the same food supply.

    Neanderthals could handily win every physical confrontation with “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” when they had near even numbers and still lose out as a species. Starvation and lower birth rated from the “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man” plus dog alliance food competition could easily have turned Neanderthal’s into another “Dead Clade Walking” species.

    Once there were too few Neanderthal’s compared to “Cro-Magnon/”Modern man, they would simply have been another cave dwelling big game species for CMMM.

    Heck, once there were too few Neanderthals, Cave bear competition for living space would have been enough to do them in without CMMM.

    All of this is premised on the “competition for living space” idea. This idea I myself don’t accept. In our modern world we might think that way, but the numbers per square mile of either species was almost certainly less than 1.0 on average. The amount of living space was effectively infinite.

    It is similar to the idea that a few hundred or a few thousand Clovis men could scour the entire NA continent of all megafauna. The population density in Eurasia simply was too low – or even just Europe.

    I DO tentatively accept the possibility – even though it almost certainly lacks data – that perhaps Neandertal birth rates were low. Perhaps. That alone might account for the demographic curves going in opposite directions. But on this, I’d stress that solid info on the birth rate will probably never be found, and that there really is no reason to guess at this other than that Neandertals as Neandertals don’t exist anymore. That is flimsy evidence, if that is all there is behind it.

  74. CevinQ – “One doesn’t need to physically kill off the Neanderthals in large numbers to out compete for the same food supply.

    CevinQ, as I just responded to Trent, the population density was certainly far too low for there to have been any competition for “the same food supply”. The ratio of food to either (or both groups together) was certainly thousands of animals per individual. It’s not like everyone was ordering mammoth burgers at the nearest Steak-n-Shake and the place missed an incoming delivery. They certainly ate whatever they could catch. (Meltzer covered this in more than one paper as regards to Clovis man.) Game would have been every bit as fecund in Europe and Asia as it ever was in Africa and NA in known times. Deer, rabbits, boar, squirrels, possum, raccoons, etc., should have been out there in HUGE numbers.

  75. Trent – “The researchers found that this fossil, named the ‘Altai dog’ after the mountains where it was recovered, is more closely related to modern dogs and prehistoric canids found on the American continents than it is to wolves.

    …even implied some sort of North America to Eurasia transport of dog genes.”

    Two points:

    Once again the Altai/GobiN American connection, as in the X haplogroup (and Cayce)

    The linguistic evidence – specifically the number of NA languages – has suggested the possibility that the movement of humans was not TO the Americas but FROM the Americas. The linguists figure X years for variations to split off, and simply by how MANY languages N America doesn’t fit the <~20,000 year thing. If I remember correctly, no less than 50,000 years was needed for so many separate languages to develop. So, contrary to other sources and our academic inertial teachings, humans may have begun in the Americas. There is nothing "game-winning" about the linguistics, but it certainly doesn't agree with the standard meme.

  76. CevinQ – “So, here is where it gets interesting, the earliest examples of salmon fishing is from a Neanderthal site in the Caucuses.
    All of the places that have hgx also have salmon runs. All of the north American native Americans that have hgx, are traditionally salmon fishermen.”

    Now THAT is an interesting fact.

    But: They have salmon runs in the Altai? THAT is a long way for salmon to swim upstream!

  77. “My Theory on the Purpose of Higher Consciousness in Humans https://grahamhancock.com/mezzatestaj1/

    No, I don’t agree on what the main theme of this article is, which seems to be “Let’s all sing Kumbaya” and that will prevent an impact from wiping out humans on Earth.” I would HATE for us to all start chanting and hoping we don’t get hit by THE BIG ONE, and it squashes us like a fly. That is a really dumb idea for an experiment, with all our lives on the line.”

    I am not sure if you read the whole article, but singing Kumbaya was not how the article ends…. The end game isn’t singing, it is gathering the governments and using the destructive tools at hand to destroy an incoming comet or asteroid.
    Thanks for linking my article instead of just the picture though 😉


  78. Steve,
    Yes, there are salmon in some drainages in the altai, the northern flank drains into the arctic ocean,the southern flank drains into lake Baikal. there are landlocked salmon in that drainage (we call them kokanee)and real salmon in the northern drainages. Before the LGM, much of Siberia was drained through the giant west Siberian lake. Ice blocked the Yenisei and Ob rivers from draining into the arctic ocean, that water backed up and flowed south into lake Baikal, then lake balakash, aral sea, Caspian sea into the black then out to the med.
    Another fact to note, the earliest example of modern human fishing is from an altai drainage, and dates to about 40+kya.

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