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

Tree falls in forest and one hand claps: Science press picks up Mexican Black Mat study

This just in from Popular Science, link here.

Massive Extraterrestrial Rock Hit Earth 13 Millennia Ago, According to Nano-Evidence

About 13,000 years ago, a chunk of a comet or asteroid hurtled into the atmosphere at a shallow angle, superheating the atmosphere around it as it careened toward the surface. The air grew hot enough to ignite plant material and melt rock below the object’s flight path. Within a few microseconds, atmospheric oxygen was consumed and the freed carbon atoms condensed into nanodiamond crystals.

An air shock followed several seconds later, lofting these nanodiamonds and other carbon particles into the atmosphere, spreading them around. Mega mammals starved, unable to forage on the scorched earth, and human populations dwindled. The shock on the atmosphere was enough to lower global temperatures for a thousand years.

This is according to a new study of ancient Mexican nanodiamonds, and it’s another salvo in a longstanding ancient-climate dispute. The study bolsters the controversial argument that an asteroid impact might have chilled the planet during the Younger Dryas, an abrupt and very short cold interval that started about 12,900 years back.

Paleo-climatologists have been arguing about the genesis of this period for half a decade now. Some hypothesize it was the result of collapsing North American ice sheets, which disrupted the heat conveyor of the North Atlantic. Others argue it was because melting ice changed the landscape, which in turn changed the jet stream. And another theory, first posed in 2007, holds that something hit the Earth and set North America on fire. This theory was proposed after a study of ancient sediments in multiple sites, in which geologists noticed an organic-rich layer of material called a “black mat.” Later, researchers led by University of Oregon archaeologist Douglas Kennett found high concentrations of nanodiamonds — a material associated with high-temperature collisions of material.

The theory soon drew a firestorm of criticism, with a concurrent paper dismissing the nanodiamond results as a false positive. The nanodiamond theory was all but ignored by mid-2011 after many groups of scientists could neither corroborate nor replicate the results. Now comes Isabel Israde-Alcántara et al., writing in the same journal that published the nanodiamond refutation.

This time, the researchers studied a different location — a lake in central Mexico instead of Greenland — and used a different set of techniques to take their measurements. The team studied a 10-centimeter-thick, carbon-rich layer dating to 12,900 years ago, which contained nanodiamonds, carbon spherules and other material. Israde-Alcántara and colleagues at the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicólas de Hidalgo in Mexico and the U.S. Geological Survey report their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The sediment layer came from a a 27-meter-long core sample drilled from Lake Cuitzeo as part of a paleoclimate study. The team focused on several microparticles they attribute to widespread burning — such as carbon particulates — and nanodiamonds, which they measured using even more precise techniques than Kennett et al. two years ago.

These particles can’t be explained by any terrestrial mechanisms, the authors say. They rule out a rain shower of cosmic particles; wildfires; volcanism; human-related activities; and even particle misidentification (like finding fool’s nanodiamonds). They say a cosmic impact is the only viable hypothesis.

This is surely not the last word on this subject, however. We will stay on top of the nanodiamond hunt.

54 Responses

  1. “Velikovsky wannabe”?

    Its more like Velikovsky was an E.P. wannabe.

    Dave, Dennis, Kiss my A**

  2. Watch it, Grondine. That was way over the line and I know for a fact you are deterring discussions and driving people away. I have this site running well now, a lot of time invested in it, and a lot more important stuff to share than your personal comments. I will kick your fanny to Phobos unless you clean up your act.

  3. I will contact you privately about this.

    Despite what you have been told, there is no one I know who has left the Tusk because of my participation in it.

    I have been happy to draw fire from various nuts such as Dennis while the main line of advance continues unhindered by their “help”.

  4. People needs to take themselves less seriously and the ideas of others more seriously.

  5. TLE –

    I was researching impact events when Fireswtone was still trying to calibrate 14C curves, then while he was looking for a supernova, and no impacts at all.

    I also did not go off looking for iron impacts at the YD boundary, as Firestone did.

    My pont is that the peoples living here at the time of this event remembered in enough detail to determine where they were and what they saw. It was a comet an not a carbonaceous asteroid, as some would have us believe.

    Further, any impact scenario has to be consistent with the archaeologal record as is known. That applies to your earlier very large eastern crater scenrio as well as Dennis’s SW tangential impact fires.

    Both of you need to learn to use the conditional, and both of you need indepedent verification before you can proclaim certitude.

  6. Hello for all

    The direction where the rain of meteoroids from a fragmented defunct comet, coming from the same stream, come from (from the south, from the southeast or southwest) depends on the local time of impacts, the Earth rotates!

    Still also, depends on the position of the comet’s orbit relative to the ecliptic, descending or ascending at the time of impact (from the north or south). The meteor shower can last several days.


    Millions of craters around the world. I do not regard could them, but I began to visit them.


  7. Both of you need to learn to use the conditional, and both of you need independent verification before you can proclaim certitude

    Actually, no, Ed, I don’t. Because I’m adult enough to make my claim when I think I might be right, and then change my mind when I think I’m wrong, as many times as I choose or as is necessary. I’m more than happy to be wrong and completely open to entertaining nutty ideas.

    Let me recapitulate where I stand in all of this. This is not my hypothesis. I got involved when the original and still contentious and controversial claim that the Carolina bays pointed to a location somewhere near or above the great lakes, something that may now be in all probability wrong. Hydrogeological arguments indicated that a massive glacial lake Agassiz flood may have been the initial trigger for the Younger Dryas, and this was before Murton et al. and another completely different controversy regarding the Northwest drainage pathway rose its ugly head, an issue I was completely unaware of. I simply just took a look at the area, and almost immediately recognized an anomaly of ‘subtle and cryptic structural controls’ in the then brand new Google terrain maps of a catastrophic flood plain known to be involved in numerous intense glacial Lake Agassiz discharges into the Lake Superior basin at the end of the Holocene. I reported it. Some groups I subsequently had contact with had their own proxy evidence independent of Firestone et al., and were interested in investigating the feature, and so I referred them to the Ontario Geological Survey website which I presumed had all of relevant geological maps at their disposal, and signed off on it. That’s called due diligence.

    Paul Heinrich subsequently dug into said geological maps and came to the conclusion that this feature does not possess the usual subsurface disruptions of any classical impact features, and since the original hypothesis had fell out of favor with the consensus, I completely lost interest, other than investigating the hydraulic features and evolutionary development of a clearly anomalous geomorphology near the area of the presumed and alleged Younger Dryas glacial Lake Agassiz discharges into the Lake Superior basin, yet another contentious and controversial issue in this matter. With these new results serendipity is still alive and well.

    Now, let’s talk about where we are. Clearly the results need to be REPLICATED by another independent group. It has to be unambiguous replication much in the way this result appears to be. The 4 km crater in the Gulf of St. Lawrence needs to be dated. It’s quite possible that a relatively modest straight down hypersonic stony object impacting on either the Laurentide Ice Sheet or the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence might be able to explain the observations. Paul Heinrich has recently uncovered a much larger 13 km feature in Louisiana that might be young. As regards low grazing angle impacts of volatile rich bodies onto deep ice sheets, we really have no idea what the resulting astrobleme might look like – certainly it won’t be classical, and to be quite honest with you, I don’t see anything in the geological maps that rule it out. There are only two complete transects and they both show a symmetrically oriented basin with gently sloping bottom which was clearly subject to high intensity discharge events.

    So have at it. Verbal and oral histories of this phenomenon are pretty unreliable compared to any actual repeatable verifiable empirical observations on cold hard ground truth evidence. Invoking a continental wide firestorm causing instantaneous extinctions and global climate change may very well be true, but to my mind that is a bit of a stretch at this point.

    My main interest at this point is the response of the scientific community to this paper.

    Thank you for your time.

  8. Speaking of certitude, and independent confirmation, I wonder when Ed got independent confirmation of his claims that Amerindian oral traditions contain accurate memories of impact events 13,000 ago. As well as who did the work, and where that independent work was published. For that matter, since no one has ever located and positively identified an impact structure by such means, I would be interested to know how it was confirmed that those stories are indeed talking about impact events, and not something else altogether.

  9. I think the certitude issues arose because I wrote two versions of the report, the hypothesis version called Darwin’s Valentine, and the certitude version because back then the thing was virtually certain. That was even before the Greenland expedition. Heck, even Boslough was absolutely certain a 2 to 4 kilometer continent buster was impossible. That’s certitude!

    So what was it? Things are looking pretty scarce, other than it was something.

    But something is better than nothing.

  10. Hi all

    Some think the cave drawings represent fosfenas hallucinatory, rhythmic or musical chords, I think it always depends on the madness of each one of us.

    I think we can plausibly assume that through material or imaterial artifacts such as rock arts, geoglyphs, toponymy etc., we can correlate meteoritic events.

    The toponymies I have investigated in the region of Panela crater are reasonably consistent with this type of event. These place names are of the same substance (immaterial memories) that their stories, myths, legends. As has been well investigated recently by Ravindra in India.

    I think therefore that it is plausible that these memories are still echoing around.

    I can not count all the craters, but I began to visit them.


  11. No, what Mark actually wrote concerning the 4 mile wide bolide thing was that it is physically impossible for a four mile wide bolide to have enough time in the atmosphere to break up completely, and scatter debris over a continent sized area, without leaving a good sized crater somewhere.

    But Mark’s very valid skepticism was answered nicely in Bill Napier’s paper titled Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex which points out the very real probability that the thing was already broken up into a large cluster of small fragments before it got even here. Note that this new paper deals adequately with Mark Boslough’s concerns by citing Bill Napier’s work on the Taurid complex.

    It’s ironic though, that it’s Mark’s own work on large aerial bursts that provides support for the realization that there is no reason to assume we are talking about the impact of a solid object. So if there was any planetary scarring produced by the event, it probably doesn’t involve a crater at all, but something else entirely. 

  12. Sure, we could hypothesize that a highly fragmented debris stream just barely tangentially crossed Earth’s path around 13,000 years ago, but that doesn’t mean that is what happened.

    Just the act of hypothesizing a large variety of possible scenarios has advanced the thinking. But again, what actually happened is determined by whatever remnant evidence one can find.

    So again, with respect to the Pleistocene Holocene transition, the Younger Dryas, Glacial Lake Agassiz, global oceanic and atmospheric circulation and a putative impact, along with human invasion of the continent, the devil is still in the details. This is still needful of evidence.

  13. “YD impact debris across more than 10% of the planet” — nanodiamonds
    in Lake Cuitzeo, Mexico, James Kennett and 15 coworkers, from 12.9 Ka
    impact event — link to free full text of PNAS report: Rich Murray

    “Based upon astrophysical observations and modeling,
    Napier (48) proposed that YDB impact markers were produced
    when Earth encountered a dense trail of material from a large
    already fragmented comet.

    His model predicts cluster airbursts
    and/or small cratering impacts that could account for the wide
    distribution of YD impact debris across more than 10% of the
    planet, including Cuitzeo.” [ PNAS report ]

    Lake Cuitzeo 0.8–2.2 m deep,
    19.940001 -101.140006 1.833 km el,
    about 300–400 km^2, ~ 250 km NWW of Mexico City

  14. Thank You TLE, for your recap. My opeerating principle is I have been wrong before, and I retain the right to be wrong both now and in the future.

    After I sold my book at the meteorite show in early 2007, I immediately had to defend my use of hominid taxa. It turned out that I was right, though there has yet to be any retraction on the meteorite list.

    Then Paul and I had a lengthy discussion about some deposits that Frank Hibben viewed in Fairbanks. Hibben came under attack when his observations were used by Velikovsky, after he had suffered a brain injury during activre service in the Second World War. It only took about a month and a half for Paul to admit that the voluminous materials which he posted had no bearing on the Fairbank’s deposits which no longer existed.

    Then when Firestone published late in 2007 Paul went on about the normal collection of meteoritic spherules in ponds for several months. And Jason went on intentionally confusing the cometary materials with the iron impactites for several more months.

    When I passed on the Assiniboine account to the meteorite list, Paul at first was “sceptical” until some archaeological evidence showed that his scepticism was unfounded. He then provided me with links to materials covering the western half of the US at the Pleistocene. That really did not help much with locating the crater from the impacy they remembered.

    Here at the Tusk, Dennis gratified that post with comments about drunken Indians. Paul quickly handled Dennis over on the meteorite list.

    Well, even though no large fragments survive carbonaceous impacts, there is a market for shatter cones, and the “glory” that comes from finding a crater.

    Someday I’ll run this back to 1997 for you.

  15. In addition to Paul’s structure, there’s Iltrude in South America which has yet to be dated, the Lloydminster structure in Canada, and the Assininboine’s crater which has yet to be located. And whatever set off the mega-tsunami leading to the Baja deposits.

    It will take the investigation of a larger crater from this event to determine direction and angle of entry.

    Contrary to Dennis observations, the Sioux fires were likely along the Cordilla in the north. But then he’s never talked with a Sioux tribal historian.

    I suspect that the high concentrations of soot in the Mexican samples may have been from fires started by ejecta from Iltrude.

  16. Glory? Surely you jest. With myself and some of my collaborators, it’s curiosity at most. We’re more concerned with prevention, mitigation and remediation. I was thrilled with the Peru strike, glad that nobody was hurt, amused by the scientific response to the on site reports, and then thrilled again with the excellent scientific followup. A LOT was learned from that one event, Ed.

    Yeah, there are a lot of disaster myths, and people are still talking about the ‘big one’.

  17. Yes, TLE, I do jest.

    Perhaps your collaborators have forgotten, but when I began reporting on the impact hazard, there was no NASA NEO Office.

    That was assigned to JPL instead of to Ames/Arizona by Wesley Huntress, not me. I merely reported the news.

    I wish they could keep that straight in their minds.

    There were multiple “big ones”, not just one. For the Americas, the indicators as of 2005 are in my book.

    The HSI appear to have occurred in the springtime of the Northern Hemisphere.

  18. PS –

    TLE in order to design and build effective systems for dealing with the impact hazard, you have to determine what hits, in this particular case what part asteroids and what part comets.

  19. “In psychology, this is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who lack knowledge in a given area, such as science, are unable to accurately assess their own abilities in that area, and so they aren’t aware that they are coming to blatantly false conclusions.

    “David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University who first characterized the phenomenon, recently explained, “Many people don’t have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don’t have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don’t realize how off their evaluations might be.”

    From space.com, under 500 words, fair use.

    TLE, what that determination comes from is data, not theoretical models, such as Morrison’s, which is noe known to be seriously faulty.

    If I have to read one more story about “the asteroid impact” that killed off the mammoth, I am going to scream.

  20. In point of fact Paul has never addressed, or “dealt with” anything I have ever really said about anyplace. Because I have never posted anything on the meteorite list. The places that others have posted on the list, and which have been attributed to me were posted on the list without any input from me, annd “debunked” without citing a single article of mine; all without ever mentioning, or commenting, about a single word I have actually written about anyplace at all.

    Everyplace I have ever mentioned online is described in detail along with exact GPS coordinates in one article or another on my blog. And while some of my articles have been published or mirrored on other blogs, I have never posted a single word of my work on the meteorite list, or anywhere else for that matter.

    I haven’t even brought it up here on the Tusk. And the crap on the Meteorite list that Ed keeps citing here did not come from me.

    I’m not clear what Ed thinks I’ve been describing in my work. But since his only source is the meteorite list, He damn sure didn’t get his opinion of my work by reading the source. And since he has never mentioned a single article or blog post of mine, or addressed anything I have actually said about anyplace at all, it’s pretty damn clear he’s never read a word of what I’ve really written. Or if he has, there is no evidence whatsoever of comprehension.

    But then again, since his reading comprehension skills are so poor that couldn’t even get the facts straight on an ordinary book review that David Morrison wrote 14 years ago, It’s no surprise that he can’t get the facts straight about anything I’ve written either.

  21. Dennis –

    Rich posted your features to the meteorite list. Paul shot all of them down.

    I wrote a book. Paul and others raised objections. I shot them all down.

    And the same when Firestone first published.

    Alone, surrounded on all sides. With stroke damage.

    As far as Morrison goes, you know nothing of his “debate” with Clube and Napier. Nor little of the Morrison’s support for the Nemesis hypothesis, versus Clube and Napier’s injection hypothesis, and how vicious that “debate” has been.

    You know nothing about the faulty impact hazard estimates that Morrison and NASA handed to the Congress of the United States.

    For that matter, you know nothing about native america, nor american archaeology.

    And nothing about cultural discontinuities, nor oral traditions, nor ancient written records.

    If I have to read one more story about the “asteroid impact” that put an end to the mammoth, I am going to scream. Or about the “asteroid impact” that killed the dinosaurs.

    Once the HSI is demonstrated, then we’ll be able to move on to more recent impacts.

  22. Those "features" you speak of were not posted by me. And without any input by me. And what Paul has to say about those places has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have ever written about them.

    As far as "knowing nothing" about America, in point of fact, you know nothing of my background. And you have no idea whatsoever what I have studied, or where. As a matter of fact, in spite of your pompous and holier-than-thou, know-it-all attitude you don’t “know” the first damn thing about me, my background or my education.

    What I do know of your claim of David Morrison’s alleged support of the so called Nemesis Hypothesis come both from you, and him.

    I wrote to him quoting something you had said in an earlier post when I asked you for references to support your claims,  where after repeated requests for supporting literature (and which you never did provide) you said:

    “Dennis, I think you’re leaving out of your list of contacts some people from Arizona, Morrison’s allies. The immediate PNAS link and your demand for references from refereed literature are their usual tactic.”

    What you couldn’t have known at the time is that Dave Morrison really is a friend of mine.

    But in that conversation with Dave I also asked him if there was any validity to your claim of his “thorough” support for the NH. Since he’s just about the most skeptical scientist I know, it just didn’t ring true as something that Dave would get behind without being damned skeptical about it. And this is what he had to say:

    “I do my best to ignore Grondine. He is not reliable. For more than a decade he has consistently written that I favor the Nemesis hypotheses, and he sticks to this unfounded belief no matter how many times I correct him. He used to show up at scientific meetings to ask weird questions, but he doesn’t seem to travel any more. As you note, however, his rejections by scientists have no effect on his vast self-confidence.

    I have no idea who he refers to as "some people from Arizona". He has had run-Ins with my colleagues from California, Colorado, and New Mexico more than Arizona.But it doesn’t matter, as we all now ignore him.

    David Morrison sent from my iPad”

    After that I was left wondering where the hell you had gotten your unfounded belief in his alleged support for the NH.  But you made it perfectly clear what you had used all those years as the “proof” of your claims when you  said:

    "Now since the Nemesis Hypothesis has been thoroughly disproved, perhaps you’ll send Morrison a note suggesting that he update this piece: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/is_the_sky_falling

    in which he thoroughly endorsed the Nemesis Hypothesis as the standard paradigm, while damning Clube and Napier."

    Dave response to that was:

    “Does anyone actually reread a 14 year only book review they wrote, let alone try to make corrections? Grondine is crazy.

    David Morrison sent from my iPad”

    In fact, if folks will read the link given, they’ll ‘ll see that what Dr Morrison wrote 14 years ago was only a review of a book in the popular press called ‘The Three Big Bangs: Comet Crashes, Exploding Stars, and the Creation of the Universe’, By Philip M. Dauber and Richard A. Muller.  In it, Dr Morrison only mentioned the NH in passing. Because Richard Muller is also a co-author of the NH. He tells us: "This book is a good read, but should be taken with quite a few grains of salt."

    How you get "thorough endorsement" of the NH, from the admonishment to take something else one of it’s co-authors participated in with a grain of salt is a mystery to me. But your undeniable, and ridiculously poor reading comprehension skills are laid bare for anyone who takes the time to read that review.

    It’s clear though that since the senior scientist at NASA Ames research center, and his colleagues, were convinced you had a screw loose or two, and with that low opinion of you coming from the very top echelon of NASA planetary scientists, you were desperate to invalidate their low opinions of you. So you rode that misconception for fourteen years. Continually slandering Dr Morrison with that lie about his “thorough support” for the NH. And no matter how many times someone tried to set you straight.

    As for your claim to academic authority: Your poor reading comprehension skills are clearly in evidence, and undeniable. You have no real academic credentials yourself. You did managed to write one book though. And yet your disdain for true academic authority is clearly evidenced in your refusals to provide valid supportive reference materials from refereed literature when asked.

    Whereas Dave Morrison obtained his doctorate in astronomy from Harvard University. He is the author of more than 155 technical papers and has published a dozen books. He has been a science investigator on NASA’s Mariner, Voyager and Galileo space missions. He’s a recipient of the Dryden Medal for research of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Sagan Medal of the American Astronomical Society for public communication, and the Klumpke-Roberts award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific for contributions to science education. He has received two NASA Outstanding Leadership medals and he was awarded the Presidential Meritorious Rank for his work as director of space at NASA Ames. Morrison was a founder of the multidisciplinary field of astrobiology, and he provides on-line answers to questions from the public sent to "Ask an Astrobiologist," found at: http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/

  23. There’s nothing strange about how I made that “guess”, Dennis, as it was no guess.

    Since we’re getting into issues of sanity, Dennis..

    There’s a whole lot of crazy people, Dennis. You and Morrison are just two of them. Your own behavior as regards both your “impact features” and myself is evident.

    Now for Morrison. First off, for some reason he seems to think that NASA email goes unarchived; second, Morrison seems to think that that email will never see the light of day; third, Morrison seems to think that he can undo the Congressional Record and supplements; fourth, Morrison seems to think that no one else remembers his behavior in this “debate”; and lastly, apparently Morrison seems to think that he can squirm his way out of this with hand waving and a few accusations.

    Well, since you ask, I have since learned exactly why Wesley Huntress awarded the NEO office to JPL instead of to Ames/Arizona.

    If I have to read one more story about the “asteroid” impact that killed off the mammoth, I am going to scream.

    Get this straight: I am not a Velikovsky wannbe, Velikovsky was an E.P. wannabe. His “work” and mine are completely unconnected.

  24. Ahem … moving forward from the petty squabbling, I just finished with this paper which was just recently published, and is available here, which contains a wealth of reference information for future glory hunters. Thank you for your consideration.

  25. Hi TLE –

    If I have to read one more article about “the asteroid impact” that killed off the dinosaurs, I am going to scream.

  26. I’m not posting on this thread for your benefit, Ed, since you appear to derive very little insights from my thoughts on this matter. And since I can’t hear you, go ahead and scream if you think it will help you become more receptive to thoughts other than your own.

  27. Of course I’m "crazy" As Waylon Jennings so aptly put it, it’s what keeps me from going insane.

    As for yourself, Dave Morrison was too kind when he described your “vast self confidence”. Since you have no academic credentials whatsoever, yet you presume to the academic authority to invalidate the opinions and work of NASAs most prominent planetary scientists en masse as if you think yours is the only valid opinion, the only accurate descriptive for such behavior is ‘Delusions of Grandeur’.

    And the only thing wrong with my behavior here is that since your delusions are so transparent, I just ain’t buying it.

    But regarding what you call my “Impact Features”:

    Since you continue to refer to the theories expressed in my work as my “features”. (a bogus non sequitur term I have never used) and due to the fact that you have never mentioned a single specific location anywhere, or cited a paragraph of text I have actually written about that place, you are very clearly presuming to an authoritative opinion about work you have never even bothered to read.

    But considering the just plain stupid conclusions you came to after reading an ordinary book review 14 years ago, you probably wouldn’t be able to comprehend it anyway.

    Your transparent, yet dramatically obvious to everyone but you, delusions of grandeur are unmistakable symptoms of, not just craziness, but borderline insanity. While your proven, and undeniably shoddy, reading comprehension skills  are compelling evidence of ordinary stupidity. The two make for a dangerous combination. And that’s why so many prominent planetary scientists at NASA simply ignore you

    As far as comparing you to Velikovsky goes: In both cases, yours and Velikovsky’s, the attempt is made to guide or define the science in some cases, and ignore, or invalidate, it in others by subjective interpretation of myth. It didn’t work for Velikovsky and it won’t work for you.

  28. Jim Kennet, and Mark Boslough were interviewed on BBC radio today about the abrupt climate change 12,900 YA. And they talked about this very paper.  Here’s the podcast link It’s interesting stuff, and worth a listen. If you want to cut to their part, they start at about 7:50 into the podcast, and their part runs about 8 minutes.

  29. Good morning, Dennis –

    You do realize that you’re speaking of the same NASA as the one that needlessly killed 14 people and lost $10 Billion in spacecraft since 1985?

    You do realize that that same NASA recently wasted another $9 Billion or so on the Ares 1 launcher?

    I never read Morrison’s Sceptical Inquirer piece until you demanded a quick reference here. I just watched Morrison’s Congressional Testimony and took a look at the papers he submitted.
    And spoke with some of Clube and Napier’s friends. Brian Marsden had an astute observation about Morrison’s testimony. I think that CSPAN has it recorded in their archives.

    Once again, gross blunders are easy to spot. And I did not try to guide anything. My effort was to simply to recover “recent” Earth data for impact. If any of them had been asteroids, I could have sold the meteorites.

    Here’s where we discover the gross problem: Morrison formed his estimate using data from the Moon, failing to remember that the Moon is part of a two body system. That faulty theoretical model was then used to date the surfaces of every other planet.

    So far, so bad.

    But Morrison ends up as a referee, and then interferes with the recovery of Earth impact data.

    And that is what is the important item here: what is the risk to the Earth and our nation of impact, and what are its sources, comet or asteroid?

    The issue is neither me nor Morrison nor you nor George nor anyone else here, but simply what is the risk, and what are its sources?

    I do not play a geologist on TV, nor am I one in real life. Paul gave you his opinion, and told you who to talk to about your “features”.

    Neither you nor Morrison are my “peers”. My “peers” are the historians of their nations, and it is a heavy responsibility to pass on their histories absolutely right.

    Continue to speak of stoned and drunk “Indians”, and perhaps an NDN will set you on a straighter path.

    I still have a little issue with Morrison about the fate of my NDN informant for the NEO Office award.

    Let’s go to the NASA archives, please.

  30. PS – If I read one more story about the asteroid that killed off the mammoth, I am going to sream.

  31. Ed Said:

    You do realize that you’re speaking of the same NASA as the one that needlessly killed 14 people and lost $10 Billion in spacecraft since 1985?

    Yeah, What’s your point? Space exploration is a risky, and dangerous business. Those fourteen heroes who gave their lives to the space program were well aware of the risks they were taking. There has never been a mission that guaranteed success. But that’s pretty silly and meaningless one-sided comment when it’s not compared side by with the number of successful missions during that same time. There were hundreds of them.

    But that’s beside the point since your comment is an off topic observation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread.

    You do realize that that same NASA recently wasted another $9 Billion or so on the Ares 1 launcher?

    So? That too is an off topic observation that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

    I never read Morrison’s Skeptical Inquirer piece until you demanded a quick reference here. I just watched Morrison’s Congressional Testimony and took a look at the papers he submitted. And spoke with some of Clube and Napier’s friends. Brian Marsden had an astute observation about Morrison’s testimony. I think that CSPAN has it recorded in their archives.

    So? who gives a rip? You’re still stumbling around off topic in an old dead argument you resurrected from last year, after dragging me back into it with a senseless, and unprovoked insult out of the blue. And that after I have not posted a single word here in months. The simple fact remains that you’ve proved beyond all doubt that either your reading comprehension skills are too poor, or else you are you’re just plain too damn stupid to get the facts straight in written materials.

    Once again, gross blunders are easy to spot. And I did not try to guide anything. My effort was to simply to recover “recent” Earth data for impact. If any of them had been asteroids, I could have sold the meteorites.

    Still off topic, and totally impertinent to the subject of this blog post.

    Here’s where we discover the gross problem: Morrison formed his estimate using data from the Moon, failing to remember that the Moon is part of a two body system. That faulty theoretical model was then used to date the surfaces of every other planet.

    So far, so bad.

    But Morrison ends up as a referee, and then interferes with the recovery of Earth impact data.

    This post is not about NASA, or Dave Morrison et al, or your self serving subjective and negative opinions of them. But when those of us who are outside of your squabble with the scientists at NASA look at all of the opinions from both sides of that squabble objectively, a truer picture begins to immerge.

    On one hand we have the most prominent group of planetary scientists in the world. And who’ve presided over the American space program, and some of the most successful, and far reaching research, and planetary science in human history for decades. And who almost to a man think you are an unreliable, and doddering old idiot with delusions of grandeur who should simply be ignored.

    And on the other hand we have a tired old man with no academic credentials whatsoever, and a ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance who’s desperate to tear down the reputations of those scientists because they think he’s an idiot.

    Since I agree with them, I’ll cast my lot with NASA

    And that is what is the important item here: what is the risk to the Earth and our nation of impact, and what are its sources, comet or asteroid?

    No the important, and pertinent item in this thread is the data that some scientists recently collected from some lacustrine sediments in central Mexico

    The issue is neither me nor Morrison nor you nor George nor anyone else here, but simply what is the risk, and what are its sources?

    You’re correct that this thread is not about you or me, or George, or Dave, or anything else you’ve been arguing about since you hijacked this thread to hype your own agenda, and self important opinions. No, the issue here, today in present time, is the topic of this thread. Specifically, the subject of the data produced by the stratigraphic work done by a group of brilliant scientists working on lacustrine sediments in a lake in Mexico. But since you’ve got the reading comprehension skills of a ten year old, I won’t be surprised if you never offer a single pertinent response to the data that’s published in that paper.

    I do not play a geologist on TV, nor am I one in real life. Paul gave you his opinion, and told you who to talk to about your “features”.

    Funny how you keep dragging that up when it’s totally of topic every time you do. I never talk about my work anywhere else but my own blog.

    This thread is also not about me, or my work. Or your opinions of work you are too stupid to read for yourself. But since you’re too stupid to get it into your thick skull, let me spell it out for you. The “features” you speak of were not posted on the meteorite list by me. And I am not responsible for the postings of others. nothing I have ever written on the subject of the planetary scarring of very large aerial bursts has ever been posted there either.

    Out of respect for keeping discussions on topic here. I have also never posted anything of my theories regarding the planetary scarring of very large airbursts here on the Tusk. Although George has been kind enough to provide a link to my blog.

    I’d be delighted to respond to on topic comments about stuff I have actually written. I’m just not interested in rising to the bait you keep throwing out Ed. So if anyone is interested in reading what I’ve actually written about what I think happened to North Central Mexico, and Southwest Texas a few thousand years ago, all they have to do is click on my name above, or the link to Crater Hunter George has provided on the right. As it is here on the Tusk, there is a comment section below each post or article. And all on topic comments, both pro, and con, are welcome there. This is not the place.

    Neither you nor Morrison are my “peers”. My “peers” are the historians of their nations, and it is a heavy responsibility to pass on their histories absolutely right.

    Yes Ed, Your overwhelming since of self importance is obvious to all of us. You’ve made it abundantly clear again, and again, that you think you are a man without peers. We are also aware that you have no academic credentials whatsoever. The correct clinical term for such unsubstantiated self important beliefs is “Delusions of Grandeur”

    Continue to speak of stoned and drunk “Indians”, and perhaps an NDN will set you on a straighter path.

    Hmmm, come to think of it, since I grew up on the Mono Indian reservation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, and have too many dearly loved friends, and family among the Mono, and Chuckchansi people to count, I think I’ll wander off into the hills this weekend on a “straighter path” to a beer or two with some old high school buddies on the res.

    I still have a little issue with Morrison about the fate of my NDN informant for the NEO Office award.

    Since Dave is as convinced as I am that you’re an unreliable idiot, good luck with that.

    Let’s go to the NASA archives, please.

    No, Let’s get back on topic please.

  32. “But when those of us who are outside of your squabble with the scientists at NASA look at all of the opinions from both sides of that squabble objectively”

    Both you and Morrison are making some assumptions about my relationship with NASA scientists.

    Me? right now I simply want Morrison’s head on a platter. You injected yourself into this with your delusional claims of impact “features”.

  33. Someone needa to educate Boslough as to cometary dust loads and their relation to the dust threshholds for “nuclear winter”.

    The mammoth, mastodon, and other extinct fauna starved to death, globally.

    The P-H change seems to be contemporary, having started earlier, part of a regular cycle, onto which this particular impact event had a large efffect.

    Thanks for the link. Any guess who is responsible for making comet impact so controversial a topic? Anyone care to tell Boslough the differences between the relative velocities of C type asteroids and comets?
    He doesn’t have to add “asteroid” to escape Morrison’s wrath.

  34. George, since the tired old troll that hijacked this thread isn’t gonna quit with the stupid, off-topic insults about material of he’s never read, or is too stupid to comprehend. And won’t quit trumpeting his own off-topic anti-NASA agenda, and let the discussion about the actuall topic of this thread get back on track, how ’bout give him a little help, and delete some of his stupid self-important crap so the on-topic opinions of others can get some attention?

  35. Dennis, no one cares about the imaginary “impact features” you see. You have your very own blog to post them.

    The specific topic is a cometary impact at 10,900 BCE. The general topic is impact, and how Morrison views that is very much on topic, as it explains a lot of the “skepticism”.

    As well as a lot of the bias against this particular cometary impact event.

  36. And Dennis, you’re confusing Morrison with NASA. That’s a mistake Morrison himself makes quite often.

  37. Ed said:

    Dennis, no one cares about the imaginary “impact features” you see. You have your very own blog to post them.

    Ya know what Ed? You are downright pathetic. You’re not just too stupid to get the facts straight in written materials. You are a stark raving lunatic to try to turn things around like that.

    I have never mentioned an impact structure on this blog ever; proven or otherwise.

    You are the are the senile, brain damaged, old idiot who get’s lost in the past, and can’t keep his thoughts in present time. You are the idiot who chose to hijack this thread to hype your own agenda, and resurrect an old argument from last year, by telling me to “Kiss your ass” in a childish, and uncalled for, insult out of the blue when I hadn’t posted anything at all here in months. And you are the idiot that keeps ranting about some crap that someone posted on the meteorite list and attributed to me. And that someone else disagreed with. You are the sick and twisted turd who keeps injecting that crap into the conversation, and then complaining that it has no place here. Not me. That stupid bullshit is all coming from you Ed in off topic, disingenuous, ad hominem crap that never has has anything whatsoever to do with the subject matter at hand. Or anything I have ever actually said, or posted, anywhere about anyplace at all.

    The specific topic is a cometary impact at 10,900 BCE.

    No, it’s not. The specific topic of this thread is the new data from Mexico. And you have yet to post a single on-topic word that indicates that you have read it, or are actually able to comprehend what was published in it.

    The general topic is impact, and how Morrison views that is very much on topic, as it explains a lot of the “skepticism”.

    As the senior scientist at NASA Ames, his views are pertinent to the general topic of this blog.  But skepticism in science is necessary and good, especially from the scientists at the top. It forces all theorists to prove their ideas with sound data. But you never speak of Morrison’s scientific skepticism by citing, or providing links to actual articles he has written. Or by providing links to valid references that might refute his skepticism.

    All we ever hear from you is your personal hatred for him. So far you have managed to hijack, and dominate every thread with the mindless and disingenuous ad hominem vitriol that comes from that hate. Your personal hatred of him has no place here on the Tusk, or in any intelligent conversation.

  38. Actually Dennis, I don’t hate Morrison. Its just that he has been and is a great impediment to the study of cometary impacts with the Earth.

    But I will add this: not only was he unfit to lead NASA’s NEO office, he is certainly unfit to be Center Director at Ames, IMO.

    I hope Morrison understands the differences between Velikovsky’s work and my own now, and I hope you do to.

  39. I wish that Morrison could get it through that scheming conniving brain of his that I don’t hate him, I simply view him as being so incompetent as to constitute a threat to the public’s safety and well being.

  40. <Give it a rest ED,

    The topic of this thread is the new data from Mexico. Not your low opinion of Dave Morrison.

    We’ve all heard your opinions of Dave Morrison et al in disingenuous ad hominem rants on every thread for years now. We’ve heard it all again, and again, like an old scratchy record. And you’ve run that tired old horse into the ground.

    There is a very clear pattern that’s developed over the past couple of years too. We all know you tend to get horribly offended, if someone will question your views, and ask for specific references in peer reviewed literature to back up those rants. We also know that there is a 95% chance that those references, or links are not going to be provided. You have made it abundantly clear that you are a man who thinks he has no peers. And thus, has no concern whatsoever for the dissenting opinions of others; no matter what  academic credentials they might possess.

    But here’s a novel approach you might try sometime:

    Instead of hijacking every thread here on the Tusk with your own personal witch hunt against Dave Morrison et al, and , and trashing anyone else who doesn’t go along with your views with your special brand of disingenuous and vitriolic ad hominem. Why not try saying something intelligent, and on-topic, about the specific topic of the post for a change?

    How about actually reading the paper that’s specific to topic of this thread, and talking about the actual data that’s presented in it?

    Since it’s a totally unrestricted, and open publication, here’s the PNAS link again: Evidence from central Mexico supporting the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis 

    I’ve also put a copy of the full paper into a PDF, and put it on Dropbox.com. It can be read, or downloaded in full Here.

  41. Yse, Dennisa, but despite all my efforts, Morrison is still at NASA, scheming away.

    While Morrison has published a public refutation of the Nemesis hypothesis, his numbers for the hazard from cometary impact are still wrong. If it were not for Morrison’s earlier machinations, this entire process would be much further along, Dennis. And while we’e latgely disussin only one cometrary impact event here, there are very good indicatos of other rmore recent cometary impacts.

    I hope Morrison finds plenty of time in his retirement to help you investigaste your “features”, Dennis.

    The effects of this paticuar impact event was a “nucelar winter” with golobal starvation, to the point of extinction for some species.

    One of the next steps will be to map those species’ diets and ranges, so as to try to better define events.

    One big question concerns bison, and how they managed to survive while other species did nor.

  42. Yeah ED,

    We’ve all heard your rants and schizophrenic delusions about Dave’s “scheming and conniving” and his evil “machinations” in every thread and every conversation here for years.

    It’s perfectly obvious that you are far too stupid, and fixated, on it to talk about anything else.

    We’ve also heard your insane rant about what your schizophrenic delusions have been telling you about what you call my “features” (What’s with the quotation marks anyway?) too many times to count.

    But the glaring stark raving lunacy, and ridiculous insanity, in that repeated rant is that my interest in talking about those places exists only in your wildest delusional fantasies. I never bring ‘em up. You do.

    The thing that you’re unfortunately too stupid and insane to connect with reality is that what you perceive in your schizophrenic delusions as being something I am oh so desperate to talk about, that you inject into every thread and conversation, and then immediately complain has no place in conversations here on the Tusk, is that those imaginary places you are so fixated on in your feeble, senile, and delusional mind have nothing whatsoever do with anything I have ever said here on the Tusk or anywhere else about anyplace at all.

    You are a stark raving schizophrenic lunatic with Delusions of Grandeur.

    And we are still waiting for evidence that you are not too stupid too read the new paper, and say something on-topic and intelligent about the new data from Mexico.

  43. TLE –

    There were equids and camelids as well.

    Perhaps it has to do with more than the population size you mentioned. Something to do with fat storage, migration ranges, ability to function on different types of food. Or perhaps on how migration was programmed in their brains – its cold, go south, not “its the time of year to go north.”

    Buffalo are quite tasty, so how does human predation figure into it?

    But then man will eat about any animal that’s edible.

    So many questions as to what species extincted, and which carried on.

    Which peoples, and where are easier, and may provide more clues.

  44. Dennis, the problems are simply what hits, comet and asteroid, how big of a hazard it represents, and what to do about.

    As I’ve stated to you before, it is nothing personal. It simply that from what I’ve seen of him Morrison is simply so incompetent as to pose a menace to the public’s safety and well being.
    My opinion is that perhaps if Morrison had concentrated
    more on his work and less on politicking…

    We’ve all been wrong before; its what you do next that is telling.
    Your own behavior here is
    telling as well…

  45. Yup! There you go some more.

    As I said before Ed, you’re so fixated on Morrison that you are incapable of making an on topic reply that’s specific to the topic of this thread.

    As for my behavior:

    In your own behavior since the very first post in this thread you have left no room for any other conclusion but that you are a raving lunatic. And I’m not willing to pretend for even the slightest second fraction of a second that you’re not dumber than a box of rocks; much less that yours is the only opinion, or that you are the sole unquestionable authority in the field of impact research. In fact since you have demonstrated the reading comprehension skills of a five year old. And undeniable delusions of grandeur in your unwillingness to consider the expertise of anyone else in the field, regardless of their academic standing. And the fact that you quickly invalidate the comments of anyone who will have the audacity to express an opinion of their own. I remain convinced that you are too feeble minded and stupid to do anything more than pretend to knowledge that you don’t really possess at all. In short, I remain convinced that you are somewhere between feeble minded senility, and clinically insane.

    I also remain convinced that you are too feeble minded and stupid to actually read and comprehend the new paper that’s the specific topic of this thread, and say something on-topic, and intelligent  about the new data that was presented in Evidence from central Mexico supporting the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis

  46. photo of typical air burst geoablation glaze on hard bedrock at top of Mount Helix park, E San Diego: Rich Murray 2012.03.15

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: [email protected]
    Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:57 PM
    Subject: typical air burst geoablation glaze on hard bedrock at top of Mount Helix park, E San Diego: Rich Murray 2012.03.15
    To: Rich Murray

    Mount Helix public park with white cross and outdoor concrete theater from about 1925 — excellent access via helical road with parking lot and portapotty, about 2.2 km SE of roads 8 and 125, with similar mounts 1.5 km further SE — in fact, probably all the mountains for a very long ways have the same evidence — so I’m just alerting the alert to some nice obvious low hanging fruit…

    Mount Helix is .419 km el, .250 km above road 125 at .169 km el about 1 km to W, so it is quite prominent, and has spectacular views.

    32.766969 -116.983481 .415 km el.

    1.5 m rock just to N of 1 m rock, both pink hard crystalline rock (granite?) with surface glaze a few mm thick that is redbrown and rough (like the surface of a brick) — a white ballpoint pen provides the scale — entirely typical of uneroded glazes on broken and rounded tumbled rocks and blocks at altitudes that preclude water erosion, suggesting the possibility of early Holocene surface melting and glazing by a very hot high pressure and density gas jet from an air burst, as simulated at Sandia Labs in recent years by Mark Boslough — the first of 17 photos I took in my first visit to the site from 3 to 4 pm, Tuesday, March 13, 2012 — I collected a few pounds of samples, to donate to anyone who can properly study the melts and glazes.

    HTC Incredible 3G phone 7 Mpx cam, 1.491 MB jpg,
    3264X1952 px, clear blue sky, 3 pm, 4 hours before sunset.

    Google Earth view is 2010.08.23, about 10 AM.

    Mt. Helix Park Foundation
    4901 Mt. Helix Drive
    La Mesa, CA 91941
    Tracey Stotz 619-741-4363
    [email protected]
    binannual newsletter, From the Top
    total 2011 income $ 140,522

    some choice informed creative comments from 202 re wattsupwiththat.com
    blog article New evidence supporting extraterrestrial impact at the
    start of the Younger Dryas: Rich Murray 2012.03.13

    10 m broken rock hill with black glazes, W of Rancho Alegre Road, S of
    Coyote Trail, W of Hwy 14, S of Santa Fe, New Mexico, tour of 50
    photos 1 MB size each via DropBox: Rich Murray 2011.07.28 2011.08.03
    photos 3-5 of 50

    Rich Murray,
    MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
    BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
    254-A Donax Avenue, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
    [email protected]
    505-819-7388 cell
    619-623-3468 home
    Skype audio, video rich.murray11

    primary archive



    group with 117 members, 1,641 posts in a public archive

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