folder Filed in Random Tusks
Vance Holliday responds further to Firestone
event October 13, 2010 comment 82 Comments

1 Oct 2010

Responses to some of your comments (which are in italics):

Haynes did confirm our evidence for peaks in the magnetic fractions at the YD layer. He found more Ir than we did at nearly any site which is a smoking gun for an impact. He’s nuts if he thinks the Ir levels that he found in the stream bed are normal. Probably the Ir washed out of the YD layer into the streambed. Haynes believes that the mammoths and megafauna died in a sudden catastrophe but he won’t say what that catastrophe is.

As I predicted, Haynes is your hero when he finds Ir where you think he should (or proclaims a continent scale extinction at 129k) but when he finds an Ir spike where he shouldn’t and throws a ringer in your preconceived notions of an impact he “is nuts.” Nowthat is objectivity!

And you ignore the fact that Claeys lab in Belgium (the go-to lab for Ir, the impact people tell me) couldn’t find an Ir spike in your original batch of samples so they were sent to another lab that did get spikes so that is what you published. Claeys lab likewise failed to find Ir spikes in lots of other samples, including ours.

Your explanation for the Ir spike in the stream bed at Murray Springs is preposterous. You don’t need a PhD in nuclear physics to understand the basics of erosion, sediment transportation, and redeposition. The exposures at MS are several meters high with a thin Black Mat. Water washes down the entire section, eroding some of the black mat and the 12.9ka level plus the rest of the exposure. During a rain, this is going on all over the site. The water moves some sediment from the arroyo wall and then some of that sediment gets deposited on the floor. You really believe that the resulting deposit will be higher in Ir after all that??? Really???

Vance does indeed think that “something” happened at 12.9k but lots of other people don’t. We agree to disagree! Since this issue is obviously important to you, I suggest you look at the primary data, like the rest of us do! Also, look at his paper. On p. 6522 he refers to “the last of the Rancholabrean megafauna” just before 12.9ka. On Table 1, most of the megafauna are mammoth, which did persist to Clovis times, of course (and Waters & Stafford clearly show mammoth younger than 12.9ka). Otherwise, the next most common megafauna is bison, which didn’t becomes extinct.

As I said before, Russ Graham and Tom Stafford (you hang your hat on what Stafford says about the dating of Clovis) have devoted a lot of time to dating late Pleistocene megafauna and their data (I’ve seen Russ give two talks on this) clearly show that most critters were gone before 12.9ka.

Further, the work of Gill et al 2009 and Robinson et al 2005 also indicate that the megafauna declined significantly long before 12.9ka

“Pleistocene Megafaunal Collapse, Novel Plant Communities, and Enhanced Fire Regimes in North America”  Jacquelyn L. Gill, John W. Williams, Stephen T. Jackson, Katherine B. Lininger, Guy S. Robinson, 2009 SCIENCE 326:1100-1103

“Landscape Paleoecology and Megafaunal Extinction in Southeastern New York State” G. S. Robinson, L. P. Burney, D. A. Burney, 2005 Ecological Monographs 75, 295-315

Surovell also took far larger samples than we did diluting his results by an order of magnitude yet he sees the same basic picture.

I keep hearing this argument about “dilution” of samples and it is ridiculous. In your PNAS paper (p. 16017) you state that theaverage thickness of the “YDB layer” is 3 cm. THE AVERAGE THICKNESS! (But NOWHERE are the sampling intervals for your samples published or available – I asked both Allan West and Jim Kennett and neither responded). Some of Todd’s samples were thicker than 3cm, some about 3cm, some less. So NO WAY did he dilute his samples by “an order of magnitude.” This is such an astonishing red herring. Your magnetic microsphere levels are as much as an order of magnitude higher than any other samples in your sections. Explain to me how anyone could samples a zone maybe twice or three times as thick as you did and “dilute” the spike so it couldn’t be seen. Not possible. FURTHER, you report near zero levels of spheres above and below the 12.9ka level. Explain to me how we could collect more sample with near zero levels of spheres and dilute it such that we found more spheres than you did???  Huh? Maybe next you could argue that Todd was creating matter with his lab methods!

BTW, Jim Kennett’s lab ran splits of samples from Lubbock Lake that Surovell also ran. One of the samples was 9cm thick and yielded a big microspherule and nanodiamond spike. Problem is, it from a zone 1000 years younger than 12.9k.  So the idea of dilution because of sample thickness, as noted above, is a crock.

The Carolina Bays are the only place where the markers found in narrow sections elsewhere are found throughout the bay rims. For many years these bays were assumed to be impact formed. Revisionists came later but most of the recent arguments are unpublished meeting abstracts. Arguments based on questionable dating methods of samples of uncertain origin don’t carry much weight.

“Revisionists”???  Revising what? I’ve followed the literature on the Bays for several decades (I had a student working there years ago). The notion that they formed via an impact was rejected long ago. I gather you are branding Andrew Ivester a “revisionist.” But he was working on the Bays long before you came along. I agree that the OSL dating of the Bay Rims needs to be fully published. I’ve been pushing that for years. But meeting abstracts with solid data are perfectly legitimate to publish. Your arguments are just more canards. OSL is not a “questionable dating method” and the samples are not of “uncertain origin.”  You were perfectly happy to cite and distort one of Ivester’s abstracts and his OSL dates to make your case in your book (p. 127)!

We have presented a wealth of data. Archaeologists and geologists have made a mess of much of the analysis of the Clovis sites yet they expound on theories made largely upon opinion and conjecture. The data will decide this subject not your opinion or mine. Opponents can try as hard as they want to suppress new ideas. That is the mantra of geology for the past 100 years. It won’t suppress the truth.

Archaeologists and geologists are exactly the people who should be investigating archaeological and geological questions. You present no evidence whatsoever that they “made a mess.” This is simply your way of rationalizing a lot of data that can’t support your arguments.

The attached paper just came out this week. In it we look at the arguments for impact-induced population changes in North America. The key is stratified and dated archaeological sites. I would argue that you and your colleagues, none of whom have any experience with Paleoindian archaeology or geoarchaeology or the late Pleistocene terrestrial record, are the ones who “made a mess” of the analysis of Clovis sites. Otherwise, by your logic I should be writing papers on nuclear physics!

I agree that the data will decide the argument. In the attached paper with commentary (incl D Kennett) (just out) Dave Meltzer and I actually looked at the data (rather than just waving our arms) on Clovis and other Paleoindian occupations, focusing on dated, stratified sites rather than surface finds, to see is there is any sort of occupation hiatus. No new data – just the extensive published record. And there is simply no indication of a hiatus.

But you ignore or belittle any and all data that you don’t like. Your problem is bringing in preconceived notions compounded by cherry-picked data and gross distortions of the work of others (distorted to fit your claims).  After writing my last letter I felt like I should send you a bill for being your research assistant! Us mere mortals in geology and archaeology do our field and lab work first, analyze and think about ALL of the data, question the data, and think about various interpretations (this was developed in geology and is called “the method of multiple working hypotheses’). Then we offer our hypotheses. I recommend you try this sometime.

I am through banging my head against a wall of preconceived ideas. And I am through arguing. This is pointless. Adios.

Vance Holliday

“The money Americans spend on bottled water could pay for bringing fresh water to all the people in the world who need it.”
Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Cancel Post Comment

  1. This fellow Dr. Holliday sounds a bit like the DOC Holliday of Wyatt Earp days rather than a scientist. Pretty strong opiniions with very little substance I would venture to say.

  2. Since the truth of the geomorphology of such events pretty much makes a shambles of any 19th century assumptions of uniform, gradual, change, and by extension, any confidence in the reliability of the stratigraphic record, those who have invested their careers in unquestioned support of those assumptions, aren’t going to believe in recent catastrophic impact events until the next one hits. No matter how sound the data is.

    But relying on mutual inter-assumptive consensus breeds dogma, and is no way to do good science anyway. Convincing them is not necessary. More empirical data is. And the stratigraphic data is already a very small percentage of the whole.

    But since there is so much attention is on whether or not the Iridium spikes only in the YDB, or if there were other spikes at other times, I’d like to point out that, if we are applying the astronomical model of the debris streams of the Taurid Complex, then repeated, occasional, catastrophic, impact showers for many millennia are a part of the postulate. In addition to whatever is in the YDB, multiple, fairly significant, Ir peaks are expected, both before, and after the main event. Those peaks should be of varying intensity. Since we don’t expect the progenitor object to have been of uniform composition, they should also vary in chemistry, and isotope mix, .

    The question becomes: Can a periodicity be determined?

  3. My guess is that Vance is defending the old Clovis/Beringia model, and looking at over hunting and climate change as causative factors for end Clovis. But we have not had a clear statement from him on end Clovis yet.

    Thus Vance’s statements that no Clovis has been found in South America (demonstrably wrong), and his ignorance of its actual distribution, which may be found cited here:,1223.0.html

    I can agree with Vance on both Firestone’s multiple conjectures as to impact points (particularly the Great Lakes) and the relationship of the Bays to the YD. (Dennis, once again, my estimate is you’re dealing with something earlier.)

    No one is looking at the Lloydminster structure, no one.
    And the same goes for Iltrude in South America.

    I don’t know if Vance is frustrated by the lack of a well stratified Clovis site in the SE, or just calling attention to it. If he has the money for several weeks of travel we could go for a drive and locate some likely areas for further site search.

    The real problem is the lack of funding. Lack of funding for teaching sampling and processing techniques, lack of funding for focused archaeology instead of salvage archaeology, lack of funding for geological investigation of impact structures.

    I’ll have to deal with all of this criticism, I’ve had a stroke, and my lithics expert is very, very ill.

    I will note that bison live longer without eating than elephants do, and that they prefer different grasses and plants. The same was most likely true of the other extinct mega-fauna.

    But then who has the money to sort it all out?

  4. Vance,
    on the Carolina Bays you write: “The notion that they formed via an impact was rejected long ago.” Ok, but perhaps we have a better understanding of all matters impact today than “long ago?” Science does make progress and about Comets, their falling apart on approach to a body of Earth mass size is a fairly new insight. Your cited remark is subject to fallacy of “appeal to authority” and can not be valid in any sci debate.

    On another matter, I would like to ask you whether the sudden dispersion of C14 dates at YDB time which is shown in your Fig. 1 in your own paper (with Meltzer) has any other explanation than a cosmic body impacting Earth? Probably not. This argument goes back at least to the Tollmanns’book, and I am not sure whether Rick Firestone, Allen West et al ever made a big deal of it. Although you demonstrate the fact and comment on it, no explanation of causes appears to be offered in your paper, an ommission which I thought odd.

  5. Hi Hermann –

    I wonder where Holliday gets his dates for his “well dated” sites from, since it was exactly the problems with 14C dating that involved Dr. Firestone in this problem in the first place.

    But as Holliday put it, “Debates over. I win.” Fortunately science does not work that way.

  6. Rejected by who? What do they know? When did they prove that assumption? When did they describe and prove what they think really happened to form the Bays? Where did they publish?

    With a 14C margin for error of +/-100 years, there is no such thing as a “well dated” site.

    There is also no such thing as an impact “Expert”. Or even a Younger Dryas “expert” We are all beginners, at page one of the most important learning curve in human history.

    Science is not a democracy. And consensus agreement does not constitute empirical scientific fact, no matter how long, or deeply held a belief may be. Only an agreement to quit looking for the truth. And this debate will never be over as long as unquestioned assumptions remain in the Earth sciences.

  7. P.S. For the record Ed,

    I’m not focused on any specific time frame, or event. Geochronology is a mess. I’m offering a fluid mechanics/blast analysis based method of identifying, and reading, the emplacement motions of the blast effected materials of all geo-ablative airburst events. And by extension, the ability to visually identify the planetary scarring of the Taurid impact storms.

    There have been many such catastrophic meteor showers in the geologically recent past. A lot of the scarring in the Northern hemisphere is much younger than the YD. The airburst melt here in central California is fragile, and easily broken. Yet these burnt facies are also very pristine. I don’t know if we can get a good age since melt for these rocks. But I will not be surprised if a date is returned of less than 2,000 years.

    I have no way to determine when they happened. Or even to describe the chemistry without help. I can only show evidence of the atmospheric pressure-driven nature of the catastrophic mass movement of such events. I am perfectly content to let others sort them out, and figure out when they happened. Or to confirm if one of them was the extinction level event that triggered the YD cooling.

  8. Hi Ed,
    if we get lucky there should be a lake somewhere with varves,
    seasonal strata, that have YDB signatures? Also drill cores from oceans? Don’t recall reading about these most reliable dating systems in the YDB literature (but am a diagonal speed reader at all times).
    Not that Vance “Debates over I win” Holiday had those in mind. (Did he actually say that?)
    Dennis: Did you have any thoughts how your cosmic blow torch would show up in lake and ocean bottoms?

  9. Good Question Hermann re: how if at all, how the cosmic event may show up on lake bottoms and/or the ocean bottom. There was a chap doing some work in the North Pacific (George will remember his name I think), that presented some very preliminairy information to the AGU conference in San Francisco last December. Also, Dr. Lars Franzen of the University of Goteborg in Sweden, has done some work based upon peat bogs in South America. These profiles may extend back as far as the Younger Dryas. Most of Dr. Franzen’s work has thus far been done in Europe, so the sampling there would not have been as old as the Younger Dryas (as the region was still largely ice covered during the Younger Dryas). Finally, a Dr. Rolf Mathewes from simon Fraser University has done some work close to the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, that may if of sufficient resolution have some more than just pollen results.

  10. Hi Hermann,

    Overall, those sediments, and varves, should look like a cousin to the KT boundary.

    But we’re not necessarily looking for the signatures of direct kinetic impact. Physically, in the impact zones, we are looking for burnt facies, and signatures of seemingly impossible atmospheric temps, and pressures, not craters. Ironically, when I quit looking for craters, and started looking for air burst melt instead, I spent thousands of hours studying the patterns of emplacement in tens of thousands of square miles of melt. And liberally scattered among the random inter-flowing rivers of melt, I found too many craters averaging 100 meters diameter to count.

    The physical structure of the thing was a cloud of fragments, not single bolides. The density was a close match for images of SW-3, or Linear. Almost all of the kinetic energy was translated heat in the atmosphere. So no giant crater is expected. But we still expect ET isotopes, and siderophile element enrichment. Sedimentary sequences that record one of these events should still look like a major impact horizon. The impacts were low angle, and highly directional. There will be a large difference in those layers depending on location.

    I can make a very strong case the objects that hit central Mexico, and west Texas, came at low angle from the southeast. Which put the Arctic Ocean under a great deal of returning ejecta. But it would have been raining fire half a world away down range. Some of the Gulf of Mexico took a few major hits in the main event. And the Pacific Ocean, off the California coast got beat all to hell.

    There should be impact tsunami evidence all around the pacific.

  11. Reading over these discussions, there are so many different areas of research that could support or undermine the Clovis terminating impact theory, all subject to debate. Since the proponents of the theory claim to have found unusual features such as nano-diamonds at the boundary, would it not make sense to really try to nail down to everyone’s satisfaction if such markers exist or not?

    At the moment I see claims of sampling problems, preparation problems, and so on, but perhaps these problems could be made to disappear. I suggested on a previous thread the idea of a joint experiment. Now I don’t really know much about the details of what would be involved, but I wanted throw the idea out as a starting point for discussion or refinement.

    The nano-diamond question appears to be well suited to a very rigorous experiment. Consider: representatives from the impact theory camp and the skeptic camp jointly collect material from several locations, both at the boundary and control locations. The material would be processed according to the procedures of the impact theory camp, homogenized and divided into at least four portions for each location sampled. Two portions would be tested (blind) for nano-diamonds at labs selected by each camp, and the other two would be stored securely for subsequent verification testing if needed.

    Not all scientific controversies have the possibility of such a clean and rigorous test. The two sides in this debate appear to be very good scientists, at least somewhat open to the idea the other side could be right, and willing to go on record with their thoughts. I think this is encouraging.

  12. Slightly off topic…

    Dennis –

    Based on the azimuth of your Mexican impact field on Crater Hunter, and the low angle of impact you propose, I want to ask if you are saying the Pacific “getting beat all to hell” is from ejecta or from the primary impact? At the azimuth shown the Pacific is quite a bit over the horizon for any primary impacting. Your azimuth aims more or less to the B.C. coast up around Rodney, but that is far over the horizon, at least as I can see it using a globe.

    If you’d rather, we can discuss that at your web page.

  13. Hermann –

    on the Carolina Bays you write: “The notion that they formed via an impact was rejected long ago.” Ok, but perhaps we have a better understanding of all matters impact today than “long ago?” Science does make progress and about Comets, their falling apart on approach to a body of Earth mass size is a fairly new insight. Your cited remark is subject to fallacy of “appeal to authority” and can not be valid in any sci debate.

    Points well taken. By such arguments Holliday can argue that the Biblical account is the definitive one, if he is going to reach back to any ancient consensus. Where does one stop standing on the shoulders of the past and consider that the ballgame might have changed?

    Prior to SL-9 the consensus was that comets don’t break up, and that they aren’t a factor in the solar system anymore. I suspect his consensus on the Carolina Bays may even predate SL-9.

    Then there was the old consensus that “rocks don’t fall out of the sky.”

    And there is the more recent consensus that all impacts must have a meteorite buried in the crater.

    As Dennis points out, “We are all beginners, at page one of the most important learning curve in human history.” My first reaction to that was, absolutely yes, we are at the beginning, but also that he may be using some hyperbole at the end. But on second thought I DO agree – can there be any more important thing in history to be trying to learn than the potential destruction of the modern world?

    If we learn, as Holliday bullyingly pontificates, that, “There is nothing to see here, folks – move along,” then fine. But we are a LONG way from concluding that. If Holliday wants to take the ostrich POV, fine. But then he should get the heck out of the way and let people who see a danger here check it out without his anti-cheerleading.

  14. Ed –

    In my reading of Firestone, certainly he has had difficulty in singling out one impact site. The evidence is confusing in that regard. Yet I applaud Richard’s openness and transparency. It hearkens back to a time when science was not a proprietary endeavor, which I see as a healthy approach. I am reminded of the early decades of investigation into magnetism and electricity, and of the early investigations into light and chemistry. No one had any patents on anything, and one person built on the revelations of others.

    At the same time, wow, does Firestone’s tranparency leave him open to broadsides by such as the pompous Doc Holliday and his six-shooter. But to heck with Holliday. He has his paradigm that he will go to the grave with. And bless him all the way there. Let Holliday hold down the fort that others built, and more power to him. Some in science actually venture out beyond the safety of the fort walls.

    The transparency allows us all – at whatever level we choose – to follow his progress and his failures. Certainly Holliday sees only the failures. The rest of us can see potential discovery where he has already rejected anything Firestone does. It is not like Agassiz, Darwin, Wallace, and Wegeman – right or wrong – didn’t have their detractors.

    Hahaha – speaking of Wegeman, I recall the status quo taught when I was in school, about the formation of mountains. Our textbooks had nice graphics of mountains being wrinkles formed as the cooling Earth shrank. It was always likened to the wrinkles on an orange peel as it decayed. In the 1950s any suggestion otherwise was laughed at.

    Dennis is correct about this being the most important thing anyone can possibly be studying. If it happened then, especially if it also happened since then, we need to learn what happened and what we are faced with. We don’t want to be stuck with wrinkled mountain paradigms, of a “rocks can’t fall from the sky” mentality as an impactor heads for Earth.

    So what if Firestone hasn’t found the exact location yet? It took a long time to find Chicxulub.

  15. Rod, Dennis, Steve –
    thanks for your forecful, substantive, and interesting comments. I believe, Vance has been chastised properly.

    Maybe somebody will sediment collect the data (sadly not this appl maths guy). Any layers differing from those in regular sequence beneath would indicate major atmospheric events if at or near YDB times. Perhaps Lake Ohrid in Macedonia/ Albania was non-glaciated?

    Dennis, when a while ago I looked at Mexican/ Texan sites on craterhunter webpage, I noticed crater fields centered near 29.5,-103.0 on Google satellite maps, both sides of the border covering about 100 miles: Are these part of the “too many craters averaging 100 meters diameter to count” that you mention? Also there is a large suspicious looking lunette shape about 25 miles to the SW of the field on the Mexican side that you probably mention.

    BTW, since you “spent thousands of hours studying the patterns of emplacement in tens of thousands of square miles of melt” there might be substantial notes or a diary forthcoming that people could read, beyond what you put on craterhunter?

  16. Hi Steve,

    To get a handle on the progression of the event across the continent, you have to consider the orbital paths of the Taurids. And the two crossing points where the Earth’s orbit, and the orbits of the Taurid Complex, intersect. And it is important to do so if we are going to work from professor Napier’s model.

    At the risk of over simplifying things, I’ll try to summarize what I’ve been able to work out.

    The variety, and distribution of the fragments (and planetary scarring) indicates that the accretion model applies to the progenitor object. And that the progenitor was not big enough to have become a single solid object. It consisted of a little bit of everything left over from the formation of the solar system. An awful lot of the total mass was water ice. And it was very fragile.

    That rubble pile was 50 to 100 kilometers in diameter. It began breaking up as soon as it entered the inner solar system. And as it went through perigee, like pouring gravel through a giant funnel, tidal forces stretched out into an almost continuous stream of particles, and fragments. From a half mile wide, down to dust motes.

    The Earth broadsided that debris stream, like flying in front of the fire hose from hell. A common mis-conception I hear sometimes comes from thinking that the progression of the event across the face of the Earth was a product of the Earth’s rotation. It wasn’t. The progression of the event in something like an hour, was a product of the Earth’s passage along it’s own orbital path as it passed through that debris stream in a crossing orbit. The model provides for something like 1.1 billion tons of total mass falling in that event. Where did it hit? Everywhere in the western hemisphere got some of it to one degree, or another. But most of it hit North America.

    We can identify two distinct impact zones. And a very convincing model can be constructed that can account for all of the blast effected materials of both impact zones, the mega-faunal extinctions, all of the materials of the YDB, the destruction of the Laurentide ice sheet, the Noachian floods, etc. In a single event if you like.

    But that same model also leaves the door open for repeated catastrophes millennia after the main event. Each time the Earth encountered the highest concentration of remaining fragments at one of the crossing points. Some years were good, and some years would have looked like the gods were having a wild rumpus of a fight. In other words, contrary to the naïve, 19th century view. Catastrophic impact storms from the Taurid complex are a fairly common event. And we are over due for a return engagement.

    Major paradigm shifts tend to take decades. But I don’t think we have the luxury of time on our side this time. And we definitely don’t have time to screw around with unquestioned dogma of any sort. No matter how deeply held those beliefs may be. If we are going to continue progress, we need to take the ‘voice of authority’ out of the picture. The only recognized ‘authority’ must be empirical data itself. Not a single scholar, scientist, or group of them.

    Assume nothing. Question everything.

  17. BTW, since you “spent thousands of hours studying the patterns of emplacement in tens of thousands of square miles of melt” there might be substantial notes or a diary forthcoming that people could read, beyond what you put on craterhunter?

    Yes, there are more than 50,000 square miles of almost inconceivable violence described in the emplacement motions of those materials. And the are craters, and assorted impact fractures, out the wazzoo in that mess. But I don’t want get ahead of myself either. It would be hypocritical of me to put so much emphasis on the importance of only allowing empirical data as the ‘voice of authority’, and then publish a book with no field work in it.

    I can still point, and grunt, on the internet though. Maybe someone else can afford to go down there, and get up close, and personal with some burnt rocks.

    The southwest zone and all the melt in central Mexico, and west Texas point out an unrecoverable flaw in standard model of the emplacement of a pyroclastic density current. The product of which is tuff, or ignimbrite. It’s also sometimes referred to as clastic, or volcaniclastic rock.

    Impact melt is often mistaken for ignimbrite, or volcanic tuff. But the important point here, is that, no matter the source of heat and pressure, that melted, and moved them, all such materials are a signature of very fast, explosive motion. And, while in motion, the fragments, and particles of rock, are in an atmospheric suspension called a density current. When a density current is in motion, it is a high velocity aerosol. And, like all mass movement on the surface of the Earth, that motion requires a motive force. The fatal flaw in the standard model is revealed when we turn a critical eye to the question of motive force.

    ‘What moved it?’, was a question no one ever thought it necessary to ask.

    The only ignimbrite emplacement examples we have seen in recorded history are volcanogenic. And Pliny the younger’s description of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD has become the core of the standard model. When the ash column collapsed, the motive force for the pyroclastic flows that buried Pompeii, and Herculaneum was gravity. The explosive force to put all that rock into a superheated aerosol cloud was terrestrial volcanism.

    Until we saw SL-9 hit Jupiter, no one could have conceived of the possibility of such energies coming out of the sky. And it always been assumed that only terrestrial volcanism can melt rock.

    The airburst melt in central Mexico is on level ground. Gravity cannot be considered as the motive force for those density currents. That standard model also requires a magma chamber big enough to account for all the materials. And vents, or rifts, big enough to account for how all that melt got into atmospheric suspension at the same time.

    They don’t spend much on infrastructure down there. But they do use the state of the art in seismology, aeromagnetic surveys, ground penetrating radar, etc., looking as deep into the geology of the region as they can for mineral deposits, and oil. Bottom line: The fault-grabens-turned fissures, and supergiant magma chambers that were thought for generations to have been the undiscovered source of all that clastic rock. (more than 350,000 cubic miles) just aren’t there folks.

    There are only two directions to look for the source of such inconceivable violence. Without volcanic systems to blame, we can rule out down. Without slopes to allow gravity for the motive force for the density currents, we are left with atmospheric pressure pushing them from behind. And that heat, and pressure didn’t come out of the ground either.

    Since the motions of an unconstrained fluid are defined by the motive force, and the patterns of movement in the pressure driven density currents were quickly frozen in time when they came to rest. They became a proxy map for the atmospheric conditions blowing over them, and driving their motions, at the moment of their emplacement.

    The truth really is written in stone.

  18. Yeah, Benavides is my favorite. There’s a good picture of the power of the impact storm in that one. There are actually three, or four, explosions in that set of circles. You get the ring shape depression as a result of the downwards momentum of the exploding fragment getting coupled into the expanding detonation shockwave. You get a concentrating effect on the overpressure of the blast wave. So we get a 17 mile wide explosion powerful enough to excavate the surface down to bedrock, and to cut into it like a giant cookie cutter. It was hot enough to re-weld the fractures in the rock.

    But for all it’s power, the blast effected materials there were blown to the northwest like setting off a string of fire crackers in a gale. And the ejecta on the southeast was stopped at the edge of the blast in a mountain of mega-breccias. We can call that place exogenic by that one empirical fact. Volcanoes don’t make mountains of mega-breccias.

    It’s a new kind of astrobleme. But it’s not a crater. The ‘too many to count’ are all fairly normal craters, that average about 100 meters in diameter.

  19. I’m willing to share specimens with other researchers. But I’m not sure that the meteorite collector market is the right way to go about it.

    Public interest is a good thing. But there is too much vested interest from collectors in maintaining the illusion that meteorites, craters, and airburst melt, are rare.

    The other day I watched an episode of ‘Meteorite Men’. They were at the Odessa crater in Texas with their giant metal detectors… No luck, the site had already been picked clean.

    But on the way out of the area, one of the guys spotted some meteorite fragments laying in plain sight in the gravel of the road. They made a pretty good haul of Odessa irons right there on the side of the road. But the point they missed, was that the trucks that brought the loads of aggregate, the roads in that oil field were made from, didn’t get that aggregate from anywhere near the Odessa crater.

    Scan the area between Odessa, and Midland Texas. They are easy to spot in Google Earth from an eye height of about 10km. The news flash there is that the Odessa crater is only one of thousands in a vast crater field. But that’s not good news to a collector who’s invested a lot of money in Odessa meteorites. The collectors need them to remain scarce. Researchers doing impact science need them all counted, and studied. There would seem to be a conflict of interest there.

    And the sheer numbers play hell with the impact hazard assessment.

  20. Following Dennis’ instructions, I looked at sites near Odessa. About 20 miles WNW is a curious-looking crater with a “Frog Eye” central uplift. The 3200′ contour circles around the crater rim on the upside (switch to Google Terrain at 1 km scale). This proves the interior is depressed, hence the feature is not a volcano. Center lies at 31.8579,-102.6363. Diameter less than 1 quarter mile. Am wondering whether funny-looking “frog eye” central uplift is natural or man-made.

    The crater field NE of Benavides is more impressive, Dennis, IMHO. About 100 miles West to East centered at 29.5,-103.0, s.a. On Google Earth this is a virtual moonscape. Half is on the Mexican side.

  21. Heck, now that you’re onto them, keep looking. There is a huge variety. Some of those strange, two bowl, craters are actualy predicted by E.M. Drobyshevski in Tunguska-1908 and similar events in light of the New Explosive Cosmogony of minor bodies

    I had an email conversation about Drobyshevski’s work with Bill Napier. He said that he, and Drobyshevski, had discussed it. And that they had both agreed that while orbits of the Taurid Complex didn’t jibe with the origin Drobyshevski proposed, there is still the potential for the explosive, electrolyzed ice, chemistry, depending on how long an icy body has been orbiting in the solar wind.

    Since we are going to get some good data from NASA’s Deep Impact/EPOXI spacecraft when it does a 435-mile flyby of Comet Hartley 2, on Nov 4, this is a good chance to make a few predictions.

    I think the data are going to be very supportive of Drobyshevski’s work regarding the explosive chemistry of an icy body.

    But here’s another few craters. Look in the areas around them. They’re not alone.

    31.096268, –104.617226
    31.520505, -102.087700
    31.347399, -105.364137
    31.517274, -105.605643
    33.769967, -105.803545
    34.916409, -104.007559

  22. Dennis, you said,

    The Earth broadsided that debris stream, like flying in front of the fire hose from hell. A common mis-conception I hear sometimes comes from thinking that the progression of the event across the face of the Earth was a product of the Earth’s rotation. It wasn’t. The progression of the event in something like an hour, was a product of the Earth’s passage along it’s own orbital path as it passed through that debris stream in a crossing orbit. The model provides for something like 1.1 billion tons of total mass falling in that event. Where did it hit? Everywhere in the western hemisphere got some of it to one degree, or another. But most of it hit North America.

    I get all that you say. I especially liked your “broadside” visualization. But when I try to place it with the SE-NW direction of your Mexican field, it doesn’t make sense to me, geometrically speaking.

    For the low angle impact to happen in that direction, it had to hit the trailing side of the Earth. Maybe I have it wrong; I understand the Earth’s orbital motion to be counter-clockwise around the Sun as viewed from Polaris, while the rotation is toward the East, which is in that same direction. So a low angle impact towards the NW would have to be on the trailing side of the body of the Earth. That would have been the last region to enter “the fire hose from hell.” I assume assume the stream was flowing in the Ecliptic.

    If we assume the stream was inbound (Sun-bound), that would require the brunt of the debris to hit square into the Earth somewhere just below the SH down in S America, with the lead edge somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean. Given the serious NW azimuth shown on your site, the North Pole would have been pointed toward the Sun, meaning it happened somewhat near the summer solstice.

    If the stream was outbound the Earth still would have entered the stream leading with that same southern S Indian Ocean area. The low angle of the path over Mexico from the SE dictates the glancing blow had to be on the LEADing side of the planet’s body. But in that case, the event was in the winter.

    I recently read one account of one impact event (which I don’t know; they argued for 7640 or 3150 BCE – I wasn’t sold on their evidence) in which the witnesses talked about the Sun breaking up into pieces. I believe that is what one would expect if an impact occurred after the comet or cometary debris had past perihelion.

    But if it was the Taurids, with a normal due date incoming of June 30, midsummer would be exactly what we would expect, so we might be safe in saying we caught the stream on its inbound path. (Not allowing for any steady precession…)

    The Taurids have a Southern and a Northern grouping, due to perturbations by the planets, but both are still pretty close to the Ecliptic. Both still stream material into Earth’s path, both inbound and outbound.

    This bit, though – “The progression of the event in something like an hour” – does not jibe with what I understand, that it takes Earth a couple of weeks to pass through the Taurids, even now. So if we are in them that long, the entire planet DOES rotate to face them. ~14 times each pass through.

  23. Hello everyone –

    Instead of responding to Holliday, we’ve ended up in a discussion of Dennis’s hypothesis about a structure which I point out to everyone again is simply not dated.

  24. The Taurid complex is an evolving system. It may take a couple of weeks for the Earth to pass through the Taurids today. But they originated from a single object. It didn’t take that long back then.

    The Earth moves along its orbital path at about 30 km/s. This means that it travels a distance equal to its own diameter in about seven minutes. The original diameter of the progenitor object is estimated to have been only ~50 km to ~100 km in diameter. Soon after it breakup, the debris streams would have been far more concentrated than they are now.

    The evidence in north America is supportive of a day time event. With the giant comet on its outbound leg, after completely breaking up, as it went through perigee. The first pass through that initial debris stream was the main event.

    As for east to west progression of the event, you only get that if it happened at night. A daytime event would have progressed from west to east. The figure of about 1 hour comes from Bill Napier’s Paleolithic extinctions, and the Taurid Complex.

    And I’m not willing to ‘assume’ anything. The directionality of mass movements of the blast effected materials on the ground is conclusive, and empirical. If those mass movements don’t jibe with someone’s thinking, including my own, it’s the thinking that needs to be adjusted. I say again: The truth is written in stone.

    The ejecta, and other blast effected materials at Benavides were distorted, and blown to the northwest, by a force of wind already blowing at the time of the blast that was powerful enough no neutralize the momentum of the ejecta on southeast of the blasts, and pile it up into an 800 ft tall mountain of megabreccias at the edge of the detonation shockwave, while carrying the ejecta on the northwest side of the structure more than ten miles downrange.

    And there is nothing to indicate that there was only one impact storm back then. There are two major impact zones, at two different latitudes, in North America. And I can’t find any conclusive evidence that they were both from the same impact storm. Indeed, from the blast effected materials I’ve been able to identify, there is good reason to suspect that The Earth has encountered that concentrated, and evolving, debris field many times since the main event.

    And we haven’t seen the last of it either.

  25. Instead of responding to Holliday, we’ve ended up in a discussion of Dennis’s hypothesis about a structure which I point out to everyone again is simply not dated.

    Actually, since the best answer to Doc Holiday is more sound evidence of a major, geologically recent, catastrophic impact event. We are still on topic. And since he’s “through arguing”, who needs him anyway?

    The best place for a scientist stuck on the old side of a paradigm shift is someplace in history. If he’s through, leave him be.

    If extra-terrestrial ND’s do exist in the YDB, They are not the only blast effected material of the event they formed in. They are only the most difficult to detect. Since the atmospheric conditions required for their formation far exceed the conditions to melt rock like butter under a blowtorch, and those condition were directed downwards at the ground, then the true test of whether they are really there, and of ET impact origin, is to find the burnt facies, and geo-ablative morphology the ND’s predict. Once we have done so, fussing about whether the ND’s are really in the YDB becomes moot.

    We have done so.

    As for the dates: Let’s get real. No one has dated any of it worth a damn. The chronology is the most contentious part of the whole issue. And the world is still afraid of what age since melt testing, as a standard test of all burnt facies in the surface terrains of North America, would reveal.

  26. Dennis –

    I have repeatedly asked you for IR and atmospheric pressure blast estimates, and you refuse to work them out from your data.

    As far as dating goes, again you have not satisfied request one.

    Whenever you have done the above, then your points might be relevant to the current discussion, but not until then.

  27. The hell it isn’t. Who tooted their kazzoo, and made you the final authority?

    I am a tracker. I can show how to identify, and track the emplacement of those blast effected materials down to a meter per pixel. That is an empirical, demonstrable fact. Something that’s in short supply in this discussion.

    The blast effected materials of any airburst event, including the YD event, can be positively identified. And the emplacement motions of the blast effected materials of such an event can mapped in exhaustive detail. IR and atmospheric pressure blast estimates will only be possible when all of those blast effected materials have been mapped, and studied. But even then, that part of the question, is one for physicists.

    But until that time, whether or not the airburst melt, and blast effected materials, I’ve identified are relevant to the discussion at hand is most certainly not your call. And in the presentation of information, your approval is not required.

  28. Dennis –

    I have not been dismissive or in disagreement with any of your basic premise. I find some of your peripheral assessments not as supportable.

    With your angle of approach being from the SE, which appears to be correct, the North Pole must have been tilted more or less away from the incoming stream. I don’t really care whether it took a couple of hours or a couple of weeks to cross the stream. The ones that didn’t enter our atmospher and the small ones I don’t care about either group. But the bolides your substantial evidence speaks of, the angle from the SE and the after perigee are contradictory, if it was the Taurids in June or July. In June or July the North Pole points toward the Sun, not away. The North Pole was pointing away from the stream of material. Adding all that up indicates it was in the summertime. The path of the stream is parallel to the Ecliptic and close enough to it that it clipped the Earth. (Which means basically IN the Ecliptic, even if a thousand miles or two high or low.) It is all basic geometry.

    And the only way for the Pacific to have been involved by impactors arriving at the same time was via ejecta. It could not have been direct effects. Not even if they arrived later: Pick up a globe. Tilt it so that your SE-NE line is parallel to the floor. That is with the North Pole almost fully pointed away, and the globe will match the 23° current tilt. The Ecliptic will be parallel to the floor and through the center of the globe. Look at your impact site. It is at or nearly at tangential, and on the trailing side of the Earth. Given that it is the Taurids it could not have happened after perigee, because the pole points in toward the Sun then. If it was after perigee your surface pattern would have a SW-NE orientation. I actually think the azimuth could be used to determine the exact DAY, within a week or so. Ballpark I’d say it was around the summer solstice, given the amount the Taurids swing wide of the Sun. The current high day for the Taurids is about June 30th. Your azimuth pretty much agrees with that day. On the Solstice the Earth even now would only be entering the less-populated edges of the stream.

    Your point about it being a younger material stream I think is valid reasoning. The earlier stream would be narrower. They say the Taurids broke of Enke about 20,000 years BP, so by the time of your airburst event, yes, they would not be so dispersed. That is if one accepts their date. It is the same one Clube uses, so we can use it for now. I question it only because they seem to never get dates right the first time around, so I assume they will change it later on sometime. Obviously an earlier breakup means a wider stream at the time of the airburst.

    BTW, if you were addressing me, I’ve never thought that the Earth rotated into the stream causing the pattern to spread out. I’ve always thought it was a one or two bolide event at essentially the same moment, in human time. But I wouldn’t have been surprised if other impacts occurred at the same time but further east. I think anything to the west would have missed. I also think that if they strung out like SL-9, the spacing of them would have meant the preceding and following impactors would likely have missed Earth. Earth is not Jupiter.

  29. And Ed, I agree with Dennis, that Holliday dropped out after he got his snarks in. He just came and took a potshot and ran away. I also agree that more impact evidence is at least peripherally on topic. But I am only asking questions and asking Dennis for clarifications about his evidence.

    Holliday seems to have the attitude that big comets don’t hit Earth. All his arguments are denial type arguments – not denial about an impactor at the time of Y-D as much as they seem they would be his arguments of ANY impactor. He has rigid ideas about what evidence should be found. If he was investigating/denying Tunguska, I can hear him yelling, “Where’s the meteor?!”

    I think one thing Tunguska did was open up Pandora’s Box on impactor types and evidence. I am not sure most scientists have even accepted Tunguska as a legitimate cometary airburst. If there is a divide on that, I’d suspect that Holliday is on the naysayer side of the aisle.

    But even if science accepts Tunguska, I don’t think they are willing to throw open the doors any wider than that for now. So Dennis’ evidence will remain buried for some time now – until such date that someone credentialed purloins Dennis’ work and claims it as their own. And the Carolina Bays and Rio Cuarto will continue to be denied.

    As Gene Shoemaker showed, you have to look in the barren places to find clear evidence that MAY turn out to be impacts. Rio Cuarto and the CBs are in non-barren areas, so their evidence has been diminishing since day one. Some meteor impact sites are accepted – because they are meteors. They are still wrapping their heads around accepting what SL-9 meant for EARTH. Dennis’ sites are great because they will still look like that in 10,000 more years. But they NOT great because they are far wide of even Tunguska. Dennis has more convincing to do than Firestone does.

    Dennis’ sites are basically what Tunguska would look like without the trees and swamps. The tree-knock-down needs to be seen as the organic equivalent of Dennis’ sites: As much of the out-blast was due to the spreading of the downblast as it was direct out-blast, if not more.

    The pattern at Tunguska does appear to be a forward-leaning pattern, whereas Dennis’ is more straight down. Until we know what blast type are possible, I’d think it was just that the geometry/morphology of the two comet fragments were different, causing one to blow straight down and one to blow forward. It is possible that all such blasts are forward, since that is the area of greatest heat-induced stresses. But Dennis’ evidence seems to argue against that.

    How many types of impact evidence will eventually be found? Who know? We are inching our way outward, from meteors-only to Tunguska and SL-9. We may find as many as 10 type before all is said and done. One thing is for sure: When science says something can’t happen, science is wrong most of the time.

  30. Hi, if anyone is interested, I have identified a possible impact feature just south of Lake Nipigon that could satisfy some of the Greenland nanodiamond results and the elevated nitrate and ammonia proxies, and also open up a non catastrophic eastern flow for glacial Lake Agissiz before the recession of the Laurentide sheet in that area, and also explain the recent Marquette ice advances that have been now identified on acoustic soundings there.

    Hypothesis :'s_Valentine.pdf

    Announcement :

    I’ve spoken to both Anders Carlson and Adrian Melott, and I know you people are true believers here, but my job is to falsify this hypothesis, and I’m just not there yet. My question to the forum here is what is going on with the Mexican ‘green layer’ analysis at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, because I’m getting ready to call them now.

  31. Hello Dennis –

    Your position is that you can claim that these are blast effected materials from the YD until someone proves they are not.

    Science does not work that way: you must demonstrate that the materials are blast affected and from the YD event.

    There’s a difference between “can” and “have”.

    You haven’t been in impact studies very long. Otherwise you would not trivialize blast mechanics, which pretty much everyone working in the field has some knowledge of.

    You’ll know you’ll have gained experience in impact studies when you’re aware that you have made some mistakes.

    What this discussion is not addressing is Holiday’s specific points.

  32. Thanks Steve,

    In fact, I don’t think any of it was straight down. More like an oblique angle of about 30 degrees. And about ~30 km/sec. The momentum imparted to the atmosphere by preceding blasts to the southeast of there is what caused the directionality of structures like Benavides. And the typically NW leaning geo-ablative morphology there.

    And the list of the distinctly different types of explosions, and impact structures is going to end up numbering in the hundreds, not just 10, or so.

    I can identify enough planetary scarring to account for all 1.1 billion tons of impacting debris described by Clube & Napier, and then some. But, while SL-9 gave us a wakeup call about multi-fragment impacts, it does not appear to be a good model of the fragment size, and distribution of the comet that hit central mexico. The fragments were much smaller than SL-9. And more closely grouped.

    The closest match in fragment size, and density, for the blast effects in central Mexico is a cluster of fragments; something more like the fragmented comet Linear, or SW-3. For central Mexico, think ten thousand Tunguska sized objects, accompanied by clouds of smaller stuff done to dust grains. Maybe toss in three, or four, quarter mile wide monsters just for good measure.

    In under 20 seconds.

    Instead of two big bolides, it was more like two big clusters.

  33. I just see a lot of assumption here ., like it coming from the south east….

    assumptions.. probably not as bad as other places on the net. but enough of them to really mess up a good opportunity.
    as far as knowledge of impacts … I think you all better throw the baby out with the bath water..
    one of my favorite things I tell myself everyday is ..
    ” nae , you don’t know what you dont’ know!!”
    I think this is a good start for everything!
    it is exactly what God told JOB

    with the new studies about australia getting warmer during the “YD”( even this is a term is just a box created by those who don’t know what they dont’ know)”
    and the other study about winds in north america how they once blew the other direction.
    Makes you have to ask did it come in from the south east or did the whole planet do a 170 to 190 once or twice even .. say like the same years that the Egyptians circumnavigated africa and the sun did something weird in their sky , like change positions in the sky they said ..
    dont’ know what year it was.
    you know …. we just don’t know what we don’t know.. and a lot of people think they got everything all figured out and they are clueless and arrogantly iignorant and put everyone down to is just asking questions..
    I say you all would be way wiser to stop drawing conclusions and try just gathering the facts, don’t interpret the information.. because you don’t know what you don’t know YET!
    but I will say one thing natiive americans call this place Turtle Island for a very good reason.
    and at least some of Caral’s residence wore turbans 😛 rotf
    have a blast boys!

  34. You haven’t been in impact studies very long. Otherwise you would not trivialize blast mechanics, which pretty much everyone working in the field has some knowledge of.

    Maybe military, and mining experience, doesn’t count as knowledge of explosive events in the world according to you. But you’d be surprised how much can be learned about explosives in those two fields. You don’t need to be a physicist to learn to do forensic blast analysis, and battlefield damage assessment from aerial photography. Forest Gump might have put it this way: ‘I may not be very smart. But I know what happens to the ground when something goes boom.’ But if you had even a little comprehension of fluid mechanics you wouldn’t trivialize it either.

    Science does not work that way: you must demonstrate that the materials are blast affected and from the YD event.

    That’s easy. If there is no magma chamber, or volcanic vent, it didn’t come out of the ground.

    But since when is an open forum on the internet held to a higher standard of proof than refereed literature? And what gives you the authority to make that call?

    All clastic rock is, by its very nature the signature of sudden, explosive motion. And thus, a blast effected material.

    Empirical facts: All clastic rock, no matter the source of heat, and pressure that melted, and moved it, is formed, in an explosive event. And it is emplaced while in atmospheric suspension in a density current. Density currents require a motive force. The only motive force for a density current in the standard model is gravity. But that’s just the first rub. Gravity won’t move anything across flat ground.

    It was never “demonstrated” that those materials were volcanogenic. It was assumed without a lick of proof.

    The assumption that those materials were deposited a theoretical kind of supergiant eruption called an Ignimbrite “Flare Up” was published in peer reviewed literature without any physical proof whatsoever. They had to imagine a way to get a few hundred thousand cubic miles of rock into atmospheric suspension in a pyroclastic density current at the same time.

    They assumed those materials were volcanogenic. Because they could not imagine a non-terrestrial heat source. They assumed that supergiant magma chambers, and volcanic systems would be located some day. They assumed that multiple fault-grabens hundreds of miles long, had simultaneously transformed into rifts, and fissures, explosively belched a few hundred thousand cubic miles of ash, and then closed againwithout a trace.

    They assumed all that without a lick of empirical evidence. They didn’t even do any field work beyond cursory mineral surveys. And they published that balderdash without even mapping any of it. They didn’t even refer to aerial photography to see what if what they were proposing was plausible.

    No one has ever published a plausible model for the crazy mantel physics for those magic trapdoor fault-grabens-turned-fissures that disappeared without a trace. And no aeromagnetic, seismic, ground penetrating radar, or any other data has ever revealed even one of them. Or a supergiant magma chamber that would mean that all of central Mexico is a supergiant caldera that makes the Yellowstone, seem like a children’s pop toy.

    But they were allowed to publish that crap anyway, because they were in complete support of the standard uniformitarian assumption.

    If that kind of mutual inter-assumptive confabulation is what you are calling “demonstrating” something, or an example of the way science should be conducted I ain’t buying any.

    And yet you would presume to tell me I have to “prove” the truth I see in satellite image data that’s better than anything they could have imagined just ten years ago? And before I can even discuss it?

    Bullshit, I’ll do that when you can prove that the Oral histories passed down from Chief Farts-In-His-Tent, and his kinfolk weren’t the product of eating the wrong kind of mushroom. Or that your approach to interpreting those Oral histories is any more accurate than Velikovsky’s approach to interpreting myth, and legend.

    I don’t need to argue when it happened to understand what happened. But I have a 50,000+ square mile impact zone.

    Even if we leave the LIS impacts out of it, the Mexican impact zone describes extinction level violence that nothing could have survived. And the blast effected materials are all undisturbed, in almost perfectly pristine condition, as the capstone of all of the terrains in that blast zone.

    That one multi-fragment impact zone is bigger than the Chicxulub crater. There are only two stratigraphic horizons that describe such ET violence. And the KT boundary is too old.

  35. Steve, Dennis, guys:
    Where you say “perigee” by any chance do you mean “perhelion” — a typo that is easy to make, have done it myself. It would make your discourse a lot easier to follow, difficult as these geometric issues are anyway.

    Note: Perigee is near Earth, Hellenic Gee (with eta), Gaia.
    while perihelion is near the Sun, Hellenic Helios.

    [Why do I write Hellenic? Modern Greeks have informed me they hate to be called that (Greeks), because they identify it with centuries of Roman enslavement. They call themselves Hellenes.]

  36. Dennis, thanks for that clarify, yet “after perhihelion” still leaves
    open is it the Taurid debris stream going through perihelion vs Earth in its perihelion (January 1 unless my astronomy fails me).
    — Sorry, you got this old math prof grading your quiz paper.

  37. Fragmented Taurid Progenitor, going through perihelion. The tidal forces are how something like that gets drawn out into a stream along it’s orbital path as it comes out from behind the sun.

  38. Hello Dennis –

    The problem is that you yourself can not imagine frequent impacts, thus your particular impact has to be YD related. It doesn’t.

    The explosive mechanics involved relate to scaling laws. You’ll have to make efforts on your own before any skilled physicist will work with you to sort it out, IMO.

  39. The problem is that you yourself can not imagine frequent impacts, thus your particular impact has to be YD related. It doesn’t.

    No Ed,

    The problem is that you have not been paying attention. I have stated many times that I believed it was only one of many impact storms from the Taurids. That’s a fundamental part of the postulate, if we are working from the astronomical model of the Taurid Complex.

    I don’t have a problem with frequent impact events at all. As a matter of fact, I think they are quite common. I just don’t believe that super-cluster events that produce hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of melt in a single event are frequent.

    Or would you like to say that the airburst melt in central Mexico is from Multiple events? Ok, but what do you think the odds are of two impact events hitting the same place twice? And so closely you can’t tell their blast effected materials apart?

    The explosive mechanics involved relate to scaling laws. You’ll have to make efforts on your own before any skilled physicist will work with you to sort it out, IMO.

    “Scaling Laws”? “Make some efforts”? What? I mean really, WHAT? Of all the pompous, condescending, dismissive, insulting, and devoid of information, baffling smokescreen of bullshit, you’ve said so far Ed, that takes the cake.

    Whose “Scaling Laws”? Scale what? How long did it take to pull that one out of your butt? Do you have some literature you can cite that’s applicable to an airburst? And what the hell do you know about “explosive mechanics”? Do your ears still ring you to sleep at night? Got any scars from getting beaned by flying rock when a charge in a road cut was too hot? Got any nervous twitches left over from the highly educational shock of getting temporarily stupid, and being way too damn close to the compression shock wave of a big, bad, boom, on a bombing range?

    And what do you know about “scaling laws” of airbursts? Or at what point you’ve scaled up enough to produce planetary scarring? Or what kind of mass movement is involved in a very large airburst? Or have you given any thought to a cluster event where objects are falling into the impact plumes of preceding fragments? Did you work that out for yourself? Got anything published I can read? Maybe some image data, backed up by a little refereed literature, in an open blog for all the honest world to review, and pick apart? Got a catalogue of GPSs you can point out as examples? I do.

    As for sorting it out, I realize that its hard for you wrap your brain around it, since it’s such a primitive, untutored, approach. And you being such a highly trained, and learned scholar, and all. But good old fashioned army aerial reconnaissance training, good pattern recognition skills, and a fair to midline grasp of fluid mechanics is working for me. The satellite image data available for that part of the continent is excellent. I haven’t had any problem at all sorting out the turbulent emplacement motions of all those random colliding, interflowing, pressure driven density currents. After 4,000 hours of almost continuous study, it’s become like reading a choreographic dance chart.

    If you need a physicist to explain the fluid mechanics, and significance, of an atmospheric pressure-driven density current of flash melted stone, perhaps you should hire one.

    And since your only real complaint has been related to your own untested assumptions of chronology, and levels of violence. Yeah, I know it’s hard to accept that an extintion level event actually killed people too And those assumptions based solely on your own subjective interpretation of the chronology of oral traditions of dubious veracity, I would deeply appreciate it if you would lay off the pompous, and snarky, crap.

  40. What Is this anal retentive thing you’ve got with dating? How many times do I have to say I really don’t give a rip. I don’t believe for a minute that anyone has dated any of this worth a damn, not even you. And I have no intention of trying my hand at it.

    The list of imaginary be-baffling bullshit terms is growing. First we had “Scaling Laws”, and “Explosive Mechanics”. And now we have “Scaling Analysis”
    Analysis of what? What scale? Your tendency to fabricate meaningless terms without valid references, or explanations the use of those terms, speaks volumes about your self-imagined level of comprehension. I’m impressed. It’s clear you haven’t paid any attention to a single word I said. You most certainly have not looked at any of the geomorphology I have described. And your pompous, dismissive, attitude makes it pretty damn clear that you never will. No matter how well it is stated.

    Just what exactly is it you want analyzed, and put on a scale? What is at the bottom of this imaginary scale you desire? And what is the top? Perhaps you can give me a link to a paper on those imaginary “scaling laws” you referred to. Or maybe you could give us a treatise on just exactly what you think you understand about the imaginary field of “explosive mechanics”. The term “scaling analysis” is completely empty, and meaningless, without the nomenclature of what’s on the scale, and what’s being analyzed, and basically makes it pretty clear that you have no clue.

    I don’t know what you think I’m describing. But I am talking about the mass movements during the emplacement of an atmospheric pressure driven density current of flash melted stone. How much energy is required to produce those geo-ablative mass movements is a question I am perfectly content to leave to someone else. How far away did someone have to be to be to survive? Hell I don’t know. I have only put a small part the northwest end of the Mexican impact zone, and a few places in California, West Texas, and New Mexico on the blog page. The full extent of those materials, and the full scope of the event of their formation, and emplacement has not been determined yet. And there is nothing in the standard model of an impact event that provides any basis whatsoever for comparison.

    But I am tred of arguing with your pompous meaningless bullshit, and anal retentive nit-picking. I give up. You win. It didn’t happen at the YDB. Chief Farts-In-His-Tent was right. No one in North America died that day.

  41. i see most of you are trying to prove or disprove one event , but no one reall has a clue what all happened anywhere, now do they?

    just so you know,

    natives say the

    ‘lakes disappeared’ in one event..
    so could freezing and or heat and thus evaporation both make it appear as though the lakes disappeared?

    i suspect one event burnt and one event froze and must have brought the atmosphere down close , if not touching the earth .. so close as to freeze a mammoth in seconds and even the daisy in it’s mouths … maybe even the moon itself came down if it was hit oh yes now that might have stopped the earth for 24 hours/ or backed it up 10 stepps…maybe even moved a chunk or two around too. no we sure don’t have a dang clue what all could have happened.

    so we have proof of burns and we have proofs of ice , extreme ice and extreme burns .. we have two sterile soil levels . but not a date or a concept that isn’t just old and tired assumptions… what if there is no tectonic plate and the Atlantic we know it was form in a day or less..
    yep it is time to just start over.

  42. Hello Dennis –

    I understand what you are saying, but you have dug yourself into a pretty deep hole here, and are continuing to dig it deeper.

    On the other hand I have a very forgiving nature. It comes from working on the cutting edge for 13 years.

    “Scaling analysis” is the use of “scaling laws”. Any nuclear physicist will be happy to tell you what they are.
    They describe large explosive forces and effects.

    The best publicly available set of scaling laws is referenced in the footnotes of “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

    Everyone is concerned about dating. Dr.Firestone’s work in 14C calibration is what got him involved in this. Dating is also essential in Dr. Holliday’s work.

    “How much energy is required to produce those geo-ablative mass movements is a question I am perfectly content to leave to someone else. How far away did someone have to be to be to survive? Hell I don’t know.”

    You do not understand. There is no one else. You’ll have to do it yourself. In other words, you have not stated your hypothesis in full yet.

    “What Is this anal retentive thing you’ve got with dating?”

    The problem is the frequency of impacts, and we do not know it. So to complete the statement of your hypothesis you’re going to have to provide at least some rough evidence before you can assert that your strucutres have to be YD, or from the “Holocene Start Impact event”, as I put it.

    Perhaps there’s someone with the Holocene Impact Working Group who might be willing to help you with these problems, but please show up at their door with a smile on your face. I know how frustrating it can be, but don’t shoot yourself in the foot.

  43. Funny that in 13 years on the “cutting edge” of a rusted, and blunt, failed impact model, you never had a clue that there are tens of thousands of craters in west Texas, and New Mexico; craters that are obvious in aerial imagery, and in pristine condition.

    Or that the Odessa crater in Texas is only one in a vast crater field of thousands.

    Or that airbursts produce planetary scarring. Or the nature of said scarring, and mass movements.

    I have cataloged hundreds of normal craters. And hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of airburst melt, and other blast effected materials that say you only think you are an impact expert. There is no such thing.

    I have no intention of doing this your way Ed.

  44. Hi Dennis –

    Hell, Dennis, its not that funny, or that unusual. Experts far better than myself have made worse mistakes, and perhaps someday you might understand that you too might make mistakes.

    In over 30 years of research into the KT boundary, no one suspected the SHIVA impact.
    And not only that, over 41 of the world’s top scientists signed a letter stating that the Chicxulub impact led to the KT extinction, immediately before SHIVA was published. The story behind that mistake is an intriguing one.

    Further, you always see it claimed that an asteroid hit at Chicxulub, when the truth is that no one knows with certainty whether an asteroid or comet hit, and the only sample appears to be from a comet.

    Odessa meteorites have been sold for years. A ground impact.

    What we need is a separate thread to deal with your data and hypothesis.

    And another thread where we can deal with the inability of some archaeologists to find, sample, and process the YD layer. And where we could discuss the regional variations in it.

    But unfortunately, unlike the Cambridge Conference, there is no moderation here.

    Dennis, you can point to the features and state what your guesses are, but until you get field data and do analysis, that’s as far as it can go.

    That’s not my way, that’s the way science works:
    You can’t assert that something is true until proven false.
    You yourself actually have to demonstrate why it is true.

    You have provided no evidence as to dating/timing, nor done any scaling analysis.

  45. “Scaling analysis” is the use of “scaling laws”. Any nuclear physicist will be happy to tell you what they are.
    They describe large explosive forces and effects.

    The best publicly available set of scaling laws is referenced in the footnotes of “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

    More pompous, self important, insulting, bullshit. I don’t need a Nuclear physicist to tell me that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fluid mechanics, and emplacement, of density currents of geo-ablative airburst melt. Such science has never been done.

    You put this bullshit out there like you’re the worlds formost expert on impacts on this continent. But you don’t give a single reference to refereed literature that might explain how all crap that applies to the formation, and emplacement, of density currents of airburst melt. Or the recognition of same.

    I guess if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance. You baffle them with bullshit.

    The part you are kicking, and screaming, to escape from acknowledging is that the standard impact model that you’ve been thinking from all these years is effectively useless. And the so called “full suite of impact markers” is meaningless. The easily demonstrable fact is that you are not the im[act expert you imagine yourself to be. No one is.

    I don’t need a nuclear physicist to tell me that the structure at 31.443489, -102.102101 is a perfect 100 meter crater. Or that it is only one of thousands in a vast crater field, all the same age. Nor do I need him to tell me that the one right next door at 31.434566, -102.104959 is a nice multi-lobed crater. And I don’t need him to tell me that if you want to study a perfect, undisturbed sister to the Odessa crater, in Texas at 31.756071, -102.497030 (it’s been completely turned over by meteorite hunters) simply look about 1,200 meters to the south, southeast at 31.746116, -102.485192. Or that there is a really nice three lobbed crater at 31.523249, -102.019601

    There are literally too many craters to count in that crater field. How many new craters have you identified using “scaling analysis”, and “scaling laws” while you were out there all alone one on that “Cutting edge” all those years?

  46. Hi Dennis –

    If Odessa is part of your structure, then your hypothesis has problems. Odessa has been dated repeatedly and none of the dates come close to the YD, to my knowledge.

    The outlying craters to Odessa were already mapped by the meteorite hunters.

    “I don’t need a Nuclear physicist to tell me that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fluid mechanics, and emplacement, of density currents of geo-ablative airburst melt. Such science has never been done.”

    Actually, such science has been done to some depth by nuclear physicists. Its simply like scaling laws, you are unaware of their work.

    As far as your insults go, let me pass on a piece of advice: if you are going to work in impact science, you better get used to them. We all already know you are frustrated.

    I’m not particularly masochistic.

  47. If Odessa is part of your structure, then your hypothesis has problems. Odessa has been dated repeatedly and none of the dates come close to the YD, to my knowledge.

    It’s not part of my hypothesis really.

    But if Odessa’s been dated repeatedly, and none of those “dates” mach up, you have to ask why multiple dates? By what methods were those plural dates arrived at?

    Since you been riding me like a wet diaper without offering a single reference besides your own book, and opinions, and if you’re going to put statements out there in such authoritarian tones, you need to back them up with links to refereed literature. Or at least the name, and author, of a publication. Otherwise you’re just talking smack.

  48. “I don’t need a Nuclear physicist to tell me that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fluid mechanics, and emplacement, of density currents of geo-ablative airburst melt. Such science has never been done.”

    Actually, such science has been done to some depth by nuclear physicists. Its simply like scaling laws, you are unaware of their work.

    Yeah, right, damn silly of me to not realize that Nuclear Physicists had studied the fluid mechanics of atmospheric pressure driven density currents of airburst melt in depth.

    I mean, it’s almost logical, right?. After all, if he’s a Nuclear Physicist, then research into the Fluid Mechanics, of non-volcanogenic modes of emplacement, of pyroclastic materials would be right down his alley. Or at least an easy task. Who knows? Maybe those nuclear physicists got bored, and just wanted a change of pace.

    Sounds damned interesting though. Do please, share with us the name of these versatile, and brilliant, scientists. Who knows? Maybe you might even provide a link to such revolutionary work.

  49. Good morning Dennis –

    “But if Odessa’s been dated repeatedly, and none of those “dates” mach up, you have to ask why multiple dates? By what methods were those plural dates arrived at?”

    You can find all of that information in the meteorite list archives. Perhaps one of the Odessa dealers or collectors has compiled it all.

    “I mean, it’s almost logical, right?. After all, if he’s a Nuclear Physicist, then research into the Fluid Mechanics, of non-volcanogenic modes of emplacement, of pyroclastic materials would be right down his alley. Or at least an easy task. Who knows?”

    It is logical if you bothered to think about it for only a moment. What do you think are the effects of an airblast with nuclear charges? By the way, such research is not particularly an easy task, and is classified.

    As to who knows, you’ll have to excuse me for not providing you with any names or pointers, other than the suggestion that from what I know of them, none of them will ever ever speak with you for even a few minutes unless you change your attitude.

    For some things, I have my own version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”: don’t ask me, because I won’t tell you. If you want to talk with any nuclear physicists, you’re going to have to find any of them who will talk to you yourself.

  50. Bullshit, you could have saved a lot of grief if you had provided refs to support what you are saying before things got ugly, and insulting.

    You confabulate imaginary science, by imaginary scientists. And then you have the audacity to come off like if I had a lick of sense, I would know about the amazing science you just pulled out of your butt? What kind of chicken-shit, cheap-shot is that?

    Your propensity to confabulate non-existent research, by non-existent scientists, to support your arguments, and invalidations, speaks volumes about your integrity. And the validity of your own work.

    You are a liar Ed. Put up or shut up.

  51. Mark Boslough’s supercomputer simulations in 2005 at Sandia National Lab proved that the momentum of a meteor arriving at an angle at speeds of about 30 km/s causes the air burst many kilometers high to produce an incandescent plasma jet, not the spherical fireball of a bomb explosion:

    “…Even then — and this is the chief difference between Boslough’s and Crawford’s simulation and previous ones — the fireball continues speeding towards the ground, driving a massive shockwave before it.
    At this point the fireball is moving much slower than the asteroid had been prior to the explosion, but it is still traveling at supersonic speeds.
    And it is the fireball and its accompanying shockwave, say the article’s authors, not the initial bomb-like explosion, which cause most of the damage on the ground….”\
    [ Extracts ]

    “……Recent work by Dr. Mark Boslough 4 shows that the impact physics of NEOs in the 30-100 meter range has been misunderstood due to a process he calls a Low-Altitude Airburst (LAA), which is a newly recognized threat regime that has been previously underestimated.
    In an LAA event the main body of the NEO comes apart at high altitudes (~80 km to ~10 km), but the object’s mass and kinetic energy are conserved as a fast moving, loosely aggregated, collection of particles which entrain a column of air reaching the ground in what might be termed an “air hammer.”
    Dr. Boslough’s work shows that the “air hammer” from NEOs as small as 30 meters inflicts significant damage, as was seen in the 30-meter-class
    Tunguska event.
    Dr. Boslough has also shown that an LAA from a ~100 meter diameter NEO melted sand into glass across a region about 10 km in diameter during Libyan Desert Glass impact ~35 million years ago.
    During this event the LAA’s fireball settled onto parts of Egypt and Libya for about a minute with temperatures approaching 5,000K.
    Its hypersonic blast wave extended radially for about 100 kilometers….”

    I haven’t yet found detailed public information about temperatures, pressures, and durations of the complex turbulent blast jet on the surface.

    Many physicists could probably calculate useful first order estimates, and write software simulations that would give valuable information, enough to estimate the area and depth of geoablation of the ground, and the transport of ejecta in all directions.

    Including angular momentum from the spin of the meteor would require some specialized working experience in using hydrodynamic codes, such as for tornados and hurricanes.

    Existing studies of debris laden tsunamis, underground turbitity currents, and downhill volcanic pyroclastic surface flows are very suggestive:

    “A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of extremely hot gas (which can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F)) and rock (collectively known as tephra), which travel away from the volcano at speeds generally as great as 700 km/h (450 mph).[2]
    The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity.
    Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope…

    Pyroclastic flows that contain a much higher proportion of gas to rock are known as “fully dilute pyroclastic density currents” or pyroclastic surges.
    The lower density sometimes allows them to flow over higher topographic features such as ridges and hills….

    “Volumes range from a few hundred cubic meters to more than a thousand cubic kilometres.
    The larger ones can travel for hundreds of kilometres, although none on that scale have occurred for several hundred thousand years.
    Most pyroclastic flows are around one to ten cubic kilometres and travel for several kilometres.
    Flows usually consist of two parts: the basal flow hugs the ground and contains larger, coarse boulders and rock fragments, while an extremely hot ash plume lofts above it because of the turbulence between the flow and the overlying air, admixes and heats cold atmospheric air causing expansion and convection. [5]…

    Testimonial evidence from the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (see the article), supported by experimental evidence,[8]shows that pyroclastic flows can cross significant bodies of water.
    One flow reached the Sumatran coast as much as 48 km (30 mi) away. [9]…”

    “Pyroclastic flows are fluidized masses of rock fragments and gases that move rapidly in response to gravity.
    Pyroclastic flows can form in several different ways.
    They can form when an eruption column collapses, or as the result of gravitational collapse or explosion on a lava dome or lava flow (Francis, 1993 and Scott, 1989).
    These flows are more dense than pyroclastic surges and can contain as much as 80 % unconsolidated material. The flow is fluidized because it contains water and gas from the eruption, water vapor from melted snow and ice, and air from the flow overriding air as it moves downslope (Scott, 1989)…

    Ignimbrites and nuees ardentes are two types of pyroclastic flows. An ignimbite contains mostly vesiculated material whereas a nuee ardente contains denser material (Francis, 1993). …

    Pyroclastic flows can move very fast.
    Small pyroclastic flows can move as fast as 10 to 30 m/s while larger flows can move at rates of 200 m/s (Bryant, 1991).
    Nuees ardentes have been known to extend 50 kilometers from their source, and Ignimbrites, because of the lighter weight material that they carry, can extend 200 km from their source (Bryant, 1991 and Scott, 1989).
    At Mount Pinatubo in the Philipines, pyroclastic flow deposits were 220 m thick in some valleys but averaged 30 to 50 m thick in others (Wolfe, 1992).
    Pyroclastic flows have been known to top ridges 1000 m high (Bryant, 1991)….

    Pyroclastic flows can be very hot.
    In fact, pyroclastic flows from Mount Pelee had temperatures as high as 1075 degrees C (Bryant, 1991)!…”

  52. Rather than you guys continuing to yell and scream at each other over your nutty theories, why don’t you go over to my blob and read the last couple of posts on the current subject of the hypothesized Younger Dryas impact. It actually contains some verifiable science about it.

  53. I really think that you Dennis, and you Ed should both lighten up! After all, I think we are really on the same page, though perhaps at different places on that page, here at the Cosmic Tusk. Let us remain civil please. I think that both of you have very valuable contributions to be made here.

  54. 4 large geoablative melt flow sites west of Carrizozo lava field, New Mexico: Rich Murray 2010.10.30

    33.621280 -106.204255 delicate geoablative flow patterns:
    to the S is an EW dark lava strip (70 m wide NS)
    with long EW flow ridges about 8-17 m apart.

    In Google Earth,
    use Ctrl down arrow or up to tilt the view,
    and Ctrl L arrow or R to rotate,
    and the four arrow keys to move horizontally,
    making it easy to see the 3D shapes of the land.
    Use N to restore the N view.

    The area to the N and E has a road Wsmr S Rt 335 (NS) that ends S at Wsmr P Rt 12 (EW),
    which becomes CR A003 (EW), which goes E across
    the thin middle of Carrizozo lava field
    and then crosses US 54 (NNE).
    Wspr P Rt 9 (NS) is 74 m lower to the W.

    33.709143 -106.145081 classic vertical geoablation ridges

    33.654083 -106.041597 1.692 km el peak
    within huge geoablative melt air blast area

    33.760188 -106.197151 2.061 km el peak
    geoablation melt

  55. Thanks Rich,

    Airbursts were only part of it. You are looking in the middle of one of the best kept secrets in the Earth Sciences. The contrast in color between the black lava flow, and the geo-ablative melt that’s been labeled as volcanic tuff is pretty stark.

    But while you’re looking at the terrains in that part of the country why not zoom in close, and show them a few craters. Look a few miles north to 34.211413, -105.970368

    Or, in the same way the best place to hide a tree is in a forest, the best place to hide a large, multiple fragment, crater field is in Karst. You can confuse things a little more, if you have a few bombing ranges in the area. An old school geologist who can’t conceive of a multiple fragment impact storm, won’t even look twice.

    But look in the Karst geology about 45 miles to the east of there at 33.894783, -105.544053. If that’s a sinkhole, at 750 meters diameter, it’s a monster. And since when do karst collapses make two bowl craters?

    Look closely, those aren’t sink holes folks. And they’re not bomb craters either. The two bowl craters like those are predicted in E.M. Drobyshevski’s work on the explosive cosmogony of comets.

    And large cluster events are a part of the postulate if the Taurid complex had anything to do with it.

  56. hey thanks for the .my step dad is a nuclear Physicist and Professoor worked for Nasa too in CA (ridgecrest ),., he specializes in fission but I sure bet he can come up with a formula in the close range to answer my questions about eye witnessed and recorded history .
    oh so maybe he can figure out how many mill- mega-tons it will take to stop the earth for 24 hours and how many megga tons it takes to reverse the turn of the earth. and those events witnessed just 28 and 3200 years ago ..
    so maybe he would know how to figure out how big and what effects that meggatons would have to have on the surface of the earth.
    oh and he just might know what kind of effects the radioactivity in those size event might be also..
    i’ll let you know what he says.
    if it is at all interesting!

    thanks for the tips there fellas..

  57. I said that wrong it is
    nuclear Fusion physicist ..
    ah fussion …fission

    it’s greek to me…

  58. Dennis –

    Put up or shut up.

    Scaling Laws really exist, and your repeated displays of lack of knowledge of them reveals a lot.

    You keep claiming that your features are from the YD.

    I keep on asking you for two things:
    1) scaling analysis
    2) some kind of dating

    You provide neither.

  59. You need to get off that chicken shit cheap shot Ed. As far as I’m concerned, Since it’s an obvious, and feeble attempt at obfuscation, and invalidation, by falsehood. that part of the discussion remains under the confabulated science ‘Put up, or shut up’ catagory Ed.

    I suppose you might think arguements without references are the way science should be done. But I just ain’t buying any of your crap. You give weak excuses like resentment of my ‘bad attitude’ for why no refs. But in the world according to me once someone calls you a liar, and puts your integrity on the line with “Put up, or shut up”, you put up some proof, or you shut up.

    You still haven’t provided any reference to explain how “scaling analysis” might apply to the formation, and emplacement of non-volcanogenic pyroclastic materials. Hell, I’d be happy if you’d just provide the name of just one ‘Nuclear physicist’ who’s been working on the fluid mechanics of such materials. Or on airbursts, and their possible ground effects.

    To the best of my knowledge folks like Mark Boslough, Pete Schultz, Ted Bunch, or Horton Newsom are pretty much the lead scientists on this side of the world, when in comes to impact physics, and airburst melt. They are physicists, but not nuclear physicists. And I’ve never found anything in their work that mentions “scaling laws”, or “scaling analysis”.

    You need to get over the date thing. Since no one has anything but educated guess work, I have no intention of joining that part of the debate.

    I believe that I am looking at the planetary scarring of the YD impacts, among others. If my estimated dates don’t work for you, or jibe with what you think the oral histories tell you, oh well. Take it up with Chief Fart-In-His-Tent.

  60. Scaling and Dating analysis would be useful, Dennis.

    There are other people besides those you mentioned who work on hypervelocity impacts and large explosions.

    Boslough is a nuclear physicist, Dennis, and if you’re going to use his plasma air burst model then RUN IT OUT. You have not provided yet any estimate of blinding or fire range for your plasma flow, nor any blast analysis of over pressures.

    Your hypothesis as to timing does not agree with the dated human survivals and their location. Your migration hypothesis is easily shown to be junk by mt DNA haplogroup distribution.

    In other words, I am not stating that you have not found signs of an impact, but simply that my best estimate is that it most likely is not YD at 10,900 BCE.

    If you can definitively show that it is, I would be pleased along with many others. I would then have to fit my data into that you obtained. But I need dating data, not shouting and arm waving nor insults.

    Put up or shut up.

    Chief Farts in His Tent gave me a message to pass on to you: If you don’t like the peoples, and think that they lie, please go back to Europe.

  61. I am Cherokee. It’s not that I think my people lie. But that you do.

    If you are so tired of insults why do you lie? Why do you confabulate non-existent science, by non-existent scientists? And then come back at me like I must be some kind of idiot because I am not aware of the imaginary science you just pulled out of your butt?

    I called you a liar, and told you to put up a ref or shut up. You must have been unaware of that science too. You didn’t answer that charge, and your prolonged silence, and continued refusal to provide a ref that that would end this silly argument once and for all makes your opinions meaningless, and distracting.

    I find your pompous, fraudulently authoritarian, and dismissive attitude offensive. And since you feel no need to restore your academic credibility, I see no need to worry if what I am finding, or my approach to sharing it with the rest of the world, meets with your approval.

    I just don’t give a damn for your opinion anymore.

  62. I just would like to say it is a real shame that things beween you Ed, and you Dennis, have deteriorated to such a very low level. I had hoped to see better here at the Cosmic Tusk! It now seems the posts are from the likes of Doc Halliday, unfortunately. Any thoughts on how to resolve the problem and get back to higher ground?

  63. If you are of Cherokee descent, as you claim, then take a look at the traditions of Battle of the Good Spirit and Bad Spirit. Or uktena.

    As far as the non-existence of scaling laws, you have made a mistake. Google “crater diameter” and “explosive force”.

    The best publicly available scaling laws are given in my book, and I told you that. The reference was given, you just choose to ignore it.

    Dennis, I don’t have any problem with Napier’s hypothesis, nor with your description of your features.

    Its simply that we need:
    1) scaling laws run out, in this case Boslough’s
    2) dating – are the features YD?

    You assert that your features come from the most powerful event in 65 million years, but you have no basis for that claim. You haven’t calculated the energy yet by applying scaling laws.

    As far as my credibility goes, others working in the field know it well.

    Why do I put up with your insults? So that they may watch.

    My guess is that your features are is earlier than the YD, but the issue is open yet.

  64. Ed

    Sometimes there is a destructive point in an argument when things have progressed to where neither party is really listening to the other. When that point is reached sometimes the only thing to do is just stop.

    Since we have very clearly long since reached that impasse, and both of us are too heavily invested into our life’s work for either of us to walk away, please except my deepest heartfelt apologies for every insult, especially any disparaging remarks to your character.

    It clear that what I am finding is too contentious. Rest assured I’ll keep it closer to my chest in the future.

  65. Hi Dennis; I think that was very good of you to apologise! I hope though, you will remain as passionate about your research, Dennis. I do look forward to your findings as to date of the formations you speak of. Cheers, Rod.

  66. Apologies accepted.

    And please don’t let my comments as to dating discourage you from continuing with your search for these features, Dennis. Consider it practice, as you can count on getting plenty of more devastating comments from others who are opposed to comet impact entirely. If you reply to them with insults, it is likely that they will hand you your head.

    I hope we will continue this exchange privately.

  67. There is a point which needs to be made here. Fires caused by IR release have been noted, and modeled to some extent.

    But not so for FLASH BLINDNESS from IR release in ground impacts or air burst events. A blinded animal would most likely not survive, but then that has never been examined species by species.

  68. Hi E.P.: In addition to the “Flash Blindness” that you speak of, I think that far more study should also take place in regard to the enigmatic bone beds of Alaska and Siberia. Early science was far more accepting of the cause as a catastrophe. Just as the well adapated creatures may have been instantly blinded, I think too they may well have been instantly frozen. I would also like to see some research into the possibility of this enigmatic event being associated with the onset of the Younger Dryas. That in mind,I have asked Dr. William Napier that assuming for the moment that the Taurids can be blamed. Is it possilbe to determine the time of year that the event took place? Perhpas from some way of backcasting where the Taurids were in relation to Earth at the various times of the year.Dr. Napier has told me that when and if he gets the time this is something he would like to explore further, (perhaps next year, hopefully).

  69. Hi Rod –

    The specific bone beds of Fairbanks, Alaska no longer exist, as they were removed in the hydraulic mining operations that exposed them. Thus their study will have to be done from historical mining materials.

    I don’t know if a sudden northward draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz triggered by impact would account for them, or for the Siberian deposits, but it would seem likely.

  70. Rod, as to the time of year for the Y-D impact(s), is there some reason to think it might not be at the normal time of the present Taurid meteor shower, give or take a week or two? That would be the end of June.

  71. Ed –

    Alaskan muck fields: I would point out that splintered animal bones from the end of the Pleistocene were found in valleys in Alaska than merely the Fairbanks region. They were found also in at least the Kuskowkim River valley (which empties directly into the Bering Sea) and the Koyukuk River valley (which is further down the Tanana River west of Fairbanks). I have no idea about those other areas being tapped out vis-a-vis research purposes.

    Lake Agassiz emptying northwestward: It just points out how little we know about Lake Agassiz’ emptying, in that the general assumption (which I don’t agree with) is that it emptied to the east, causing the THC to spaz out for a while. Rod knows quite a bit about this. But I would point out that the present topography does not lend itself to Lake Agassiz emptying out to the NW, since in that direction the elevation is considerably higher than central Manitoba.

  72. Dennis –

    I happen to agree with Ed, on the dating of your events. Can you give your reasons for connecting them to the Y-D period, vs 3150 BC for example?

  73. Hi Steve –

    Thanks for the info on the other areas. RC dates will be important, as will “autopsies” determining the causes of death.

    We have a possible sizable iron asteroid impact on the west coast of Alaska ca 34,000 BCE (if I remember the date correctly), so some of the splintered bones may be from that. A candidate crater is being looked at there.

    As far as elevations goes, there was an ice sheet at the time. There’s also isostatic rebound to consider.

    Now if I could remember where I placed my coffee…

  74. I happen to agree with Ed, on the dating of your events. Can you give your reasons for connecting them to the Y-D period, vs 3150 BC for example?

    To tell you the truth, I like both dates. The Mexican geo-ablative materials describe almost inconceivable violence. And the toughest question there, is to imagine how anything at all could have survived in north central Mexico. So, until I see actual tested dates, I like the Mexican impact zone as a suspect in the Mega faunal extinctions.

    There are thousands of undocumented, but normal, impact craters averaging 100 meters in diameter in west Texas, and eastern New Mexico. Their age is anyone’s guess. But they are all in the same very good condition.

    The Red Rock River valley of southwest Montana has a crater field of oblique impacts coming from the southwest, that can be reliably dated to the late Pleistocene by an ejecta blanket that’s covering an ancient Pleistocene meander of the the river. Those impacts came from a completely different trajectory as either the Mexican zone, or the crater fields in Texas, and New Mexico.

    Whatever hit California came from the southwest too. But while the pristine condition of the burnt facies here in California cries out for a much younger date, the violence thing comes into play again. Central California got blasted pretty hard. So I tend to want to think of it as an extinction event here too.

    So, on one hand, I see compelling evidence of extinction level violence that points to the YD, and the megafaunal extinctions. Yet the burnt facies here in central California are so pristine that if tests come back saying they are only centuries old, I won’t be surprised.

  75. Hi Again E.P. and to you Steve, too: First I want to try and answer Ed’s comments. I do think that Steve again has hit the nail on the head. I say this because the drainage for Lake Agassiz I see as primarily contining to flow south via the Mississippi River during the Younger Dryas. Scientists that still maintain meltwater in large amounts moving down the St. Lawrence is pretty much like flogging a dead horse. This is because that route appears to have stll been blocked by ice. Also a couple of studies indicate that the North Atlantic remained relatively saline, (absence of freshwater through the Younger Dryas). As for any kind of northerly route (proposed by Clark and Tarasov and others), it now seems that this way was also blocked by ice. And as for the Great Lake Agassiz draining towards Alaska, this is out of the question too (Steve’s higher topography reason but also other reasons too).Further to the very enigmatic bone beds of Alaska and Siberia too. It is a shame that science was not able to get to the Fairbanks deposits before the gravel extraction took place. But as Steve mentions, there are many other deposits. What is so very intriguing to me is that not just large animals, but many small mammals fell victim to what must have been truly a massive catastrophe,as well. If one examines Dr. Paul La Violette’s book ” Earth Under Fire’ a number of features jump out. P. 208 “It is generally agreed that the animals died from asphixiation, as might occur in drowning.” Another telling comment appears to be – “we may surmise that whatever killed these animals must have overtaken them quite unaware, while they were in the process of grazing, as food as been found between their teeth, and also undigested in their stomachs.” Also, as aside yes it would seem logical that if the taurids were involved then a June impact might have been. Dr. William Napier when I posed this link to him said that 13,000 years ago the Taurids might not have been encountering Earth as today. This is something that he hopes (when and if he gets the time to explore further). Also,”dramatic cooling of the region must have taken place as the carcasses are far from fully decayed.” Radicarbon dates attributed to the bone beds do go from the start of the Younger dryas all the way back to 70,000 BP (more than one event perhaps?) And too, the very high 250 – 600 metre elevation of some of the beds indicates, at least to me, that it was likely tsunami(s) from impact into the Pacific that were cause for the the extrme height of the deposits. Remember too that the sea levels at Younger Dryas times were still well below what they are today.

  76. Hi Dennis –

    This is how science is done:

    If you have not been in direct contact with them already, you should do so.

    Note that they do not claim that Odessa was a comet impact.

    As far as oblique impacts goes, I was on them from the first new Mars imagery.

    As far as scaling laws goes, here they are applied:

    Now since you (like me now) can not invert Boslough’s small comet fragment impact equations, what you need to do is use Purdue’s calculator repeatedly until you come up with results that match each of the features you found, then sum them for a total energy for the event.

    Like I told you before, your features do not appear to match up with the YD accounts handed down to us, nor with the extinction data.

  77. Hi Rod –

    Thanks for the references to those two northern drainage researchers.
    Based om the traditions, I’ll still hold with them, until firm YD data from the North Pacific/Arctic comes in that shows otherwise.

    The elevations were different due to the ice, and the destruction of an ice block is one of the questions. The other is the possibility of an tangential impact mega-tsunami in Glacial Lake Agassiz.

    Blast effects might account for the “asphyxiation”. A sudden northward drainage may well account for the freezing.

    As always, the possibility of different impact events can not be excluded.

    One of the things that irritates me here is that we never did get to discuss the actual distribution of “black mat” materials in this chain, which would have been nice.