Archaeologica.org

As we all know by now, one theory for the onset of the Younger Dryas involves invoking the impact of a comet. Now, a new study has been published that purports to present evidence for huge fires, global wide in nature, and igniting about 10% of the Earth's biomass. If true, it would of course rank as one of mankind's greatest witnessed, and lived through, disasters.

A description in brief:

https://www.sott.net/article/376194-Ear ... ajor-study

The two part study, compiling evidence for the biomass fires:

https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploa ... t-1-MS.pdf

https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploa ... t-2-MS.pdf

This is, of course, the so-called Clovis Comet, and its occurance is not universally accepted. It's still a hotly disputed theory.

I figured I would put in one place, three earlier studies that promote the Comet theory as the event initiating the Younger Dryas. The last of these studies involves our much debated archaeological site, Gobekli Tepe:

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/ ... 0.full.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44031

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... i-ice-age/

The last was was of course last years ridiculous Edinburgh /Sweatman ( let us not forget he is an engineer , playing and losing at archaeology , astronomy etc) paper , that has safely been consigned to the bin .

tiompan, regardless of Sweatman and the Edinburgh team's analysis,
do you think comet impacts occurred at the beginning of the Holocene?
This is the simple and direct question that you have been avoiding answering in any way for some time now.

EP .

I know it takes multiple posts before anything sinks in .
I am not interested in discussing anything with you . I only point out your errors , that in itself takes literally years before it sinks in .
Can you imagine what a discussion would be like ?

I'm not interested in my opinion , why should you be ? It's much quicker to stick to facts ,although in your case even that it is incredibly slow .
If I have said anything about cometary impacts at any time then do quote it and refute it, if you can .
Before asking the same question again , re-read the last sentence or the whole post and if you still think it makes sense to ask it yet again , your problem is even greater than has been apparent for a long time .

Yes tiompan, I can imagine what discussing this with you is like.

You are grasping at straws in your effort to preserve your denial that asteroid an comet impacts were a significant part of the human environment.

Even if the Edinburgh analysis of Gobekli Tepe falls through, which in the opinion of some it has not yet,
there is the little problem that the bulk of the evidence for significant comet impacts occurring slightly prior to Gobekli Tepe's construction
is geological in nature, and that is a field in which you have demonstrated no training or competence at all.

Now given those comet impacts, and their effects, both proved geologically,
we should expect that Gobekli Tepe will reflect the times of those those people who constructed it.

I do not mind having any analysis, including my own, put to the most sceptical review, as this is useful in refining them.
But do not expect me to defend the analysis of others,
and do not use their failures or errors to belittle my own work.

By the way, the meaning of "henge" has changed, at least here in the States.

You also need to understand that there were other impacts, which also had significant social consequences.
Finally, the effects of a large volcanic eruption on the P'erhepechuas (Tarascans) may provide another way into Meso American proto history.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... attan.html

"your denial that asteroid an comet impacts were a significant part of the human environment."

Why can't you understand the simplest of comments ?
All you have to do is provide the quote that I am supposedly evading , then show that it is wrong and refute it .
Simple isn't it . But you won't or can't.

The Edinburgh paper was rubbish . If you have anything to say that can refute anything said about it here , provide the data .

The meaning of henge has not changed, it may have for you , but not for anyone else ,particularly those who know about the subject .
Of course that means nothing to you as you make up your own definitions .

tiompan, I have a limited amount of time, and I do not HAVE to give you any of it at all.

I don't want any of your time , it' s a complete waste .
You waste everybody's time including your own by being unable to comprehend simple English , and constantly repeating and reposting the same nonsense .

You are mistaking yourself with everybody, tiompan.
Delusions of grndeur are a common symptom of insanity.

"You are mistaking yourself with everybody"
Another manifestation of the delusion of being able to understand /speak English .

Read the comment again " You waste everybody's time including your own by being unable to comprehend simple English "
Think about it , particularly " everybody's time including your own " .


If you don't think that you are wasting everybody's time by your constant reposting and repeating the same nonsense ,which is mostly a result of being unable to understand simple refutations of your fantasies ,
then there is another delusion to be added to the interpretative one .

tiompan -

While its interesting to watch the psychological mechanisms of denial,
it is not all THAT interesting.

The Data is what it is,
regardless of whether I use the word "henge" as it is commonly used in the States or not.

When I started out on this, no one thought recent comet impacts possible,
and they used about every foul means available to suppress the idea.
You can name call away as far as I am concerned,
as long as the data gets circulated.

Determining the exact rate of asteroid and comet impacts has consequences in the real world,
and it is pretty clear you are too "intellectually limited" to be of any help in doing this.

I will also note that you are an "intellectual coward" for resorting to the methods you use.

E.P. Grondine, thinker of dangerous ideas.

E.P. thinker of daft ideas that are demonstrably wrong ,is all we ever see .

We see your regular errors highlighted and refuted , it is not at all interesting or edifying to see your denial in accepting the facts .

You even make up your own definitions .Those who know about the subject in the US know what a henge is , it is nothing like your definition .
Give us a break from your constant repetitions of the same errors .

E.P. Grondine wrote:Yes tiompan, I can imagine what discussing this with you is like.

You are grasping at straws in your effort to preserve your denial that asteroid an comet impacts were a significant part of the human environment.

Even if the Edinburgh analysis of Gobekli Tepe falls through, which in the opinion of some it has not yet,
there is the little problem that the bulk of the evidence for significant comet impacts occurring slightly prior to Gobekli Tepe's construction
is geological in nature, and that is a field in which you have demonstrated no training or competence at all.

Now given those comet impacts, and their effects, both proved geologically,
we should expect that Gobekli Tepe will reflect the times of those those people who constructed it.

I do not mind having any analysis, including my own, put to the most sceptical review, as this is useful in refining them.
But do not expect me to defend the analysis of others,
and do not use their failures or errors to belittle my own work.

By the way, the meaning of "henge" has changed, at least here in the States.

You also need to understand that there were other impacts, which also had significant social consequences.
Finally, the effects of a large volcanic eruption on the P'erhepechuas (Tarascans) may provide another way into Meso American proto history.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... attan.html

First of all, the new Mexican discovery is still another smashing example of how LIDAR is literally lighting up the past. What a revolutionary tool. Overnight LIDAR has revealed a vastly more complex and populated Mayan world, and now this. Fantastic!

Second, at this point, rather then be bored to death by two people smashing each other over the head over the definition of henge, ad infinitum, page after page after page after page, it would probably just be easier to denote what E.P. Is referring to as a "Grondine henge", understand that it is not the same as a henge as classically defined, and just accept it as E.P's working term, so that if there is any argument at all to be advanced, we can at least get past "it's a henge; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not". Just seems easier to accept E.P's informal working definition, understand it does not match the formal definition, and get on with it.

Why should you accept a definition that is not only admittedly made up by E.P. , but is also demonstrably wrong .
In contrast we have the correct definition used and understood worldwide ,further , we have the terminology to describe what he is wrongfully attempting to describe .
That terminology is also used and understood world wide by those who about the subject . Using the wrong terminology helps no one and only causes confusion .
If you want to include yourself among the wilfully ignorant , that is fine but to have said nothing about the problem of ep's inability to face the facts , then decide to comment in such a pathetic manner is perverse in the extreme .