Dear Leroy – not to worry, Dalton is a competent scientist and did what he could do with the materials given to him. The problem lies with Scott and Pinter.
Some brief reasons why the Dalton et al paper is inept:
1.They did not collect from the YDB layer at the Arlington site that was used in the two Kennett et al papers, but from layers that contained “carbonaceous particles”, mostly charcoal – there are no diamonds in charcoal and it is not clear that they even sampled the YDB.
2. They did not collect or at least process the YDB sediment at Murray Springs, which contains most of the nanodiamonds in the YDB as loose nanodiamonds – probably too much work because the work is labor intensive – need to separate kilos of material. The diamonds average about 50 to 100 ppb and you need a lot of diamonds, processed by the correct separation protocol.
3. Yes, we saw graphene, graphane and chaoite, but these are not diamonds.
4. They analyzed microcharcoal and glassy carbon for diamonds and found none, neither did we! These “carbon particles” were made outside the constrains for diamond production and survival.
5. Two reviewers for the Kennett papers are world class shock and diamond experts – they had no problem.
6. One independent stratigrapher who read the Daulton paper was astonished at the “complete ineptness of field protocol and sample characterization”. Of course, you and others can judge for yourselves.
7. The Greenland paper (Glaciology) will appear in September and there are sufficient diamond data in this paper (STEM, HRTEM, RAMAN, EELS, etc.) to prove once and for all that diamonds do, indeed, occur in the YDB.