Mississippi Embayment/Bolide Astrobleme

[Nacon]

Kalopin

You have NO answers, I do! The only things delusional and imaginary are yours and many others present beliefs!
Please name ONE thing that 'conflicts' with my hypothesis! There would be a 'point' if there was any!

This impact will be proven correct and all the ones trying so hard to fight it will look like the idiots that they are!
Because that is all you are trying to do. You are not trying to give any investigation. You made your stance from the beginning that you "assure'd me I had not found any impact. But as time passed, you found absolutely no rebuttal and attempted to mask the truths with inuendos, baseless accusations, put-downs, and unfounded criticism. I just feel sorry for you.
Read the thread, study the facts and you will see who is right!
YOU are wasting MY time!
Admit the truth or just shut-up!


Actually, there are many. First, it would appear that you have not fully studied the formational processes of the Embayment syncline. These processes are not at all consistent with impact-related events, either structurally or temporally.

Second, your speculations do not account for the various other rather significant New Madrid Fault Zone events that have occurred since the 1811-1812 events. These would include the magnitude 6.0-6.5 quakes of 1843 and 1895 and the 3.6 event of February, 2013, amongst others. For further information, the following may be of assistance:

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/ge ... letin1.htm

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceu ... pFINAL.pdf

Thirdly, while the Euroamerican population of the area of concern was not necessarily substantial, there are, nonetheless, qualified records that do survive. Amongst these are those of William Clark (yes, that William Clark). At the time of the 1811-1812 events he was headquartered in St. Louis in his position as a United States government "Indian agent". While his communiques of the time do ask for assistance for the local area, there would appear to be no mention of a devastating human death toll.

.

[Kalopin]

Please name ONE thing that 'conflicts' with my hypothesis! There would be a 'point' if there was any!



Actually, there are many. First, it would appear that you have not fully studied the formational processes of the Embayment syncline. These processes are not at all consistent with impact-related events, either structurally or temporally.

Second, your speculations do not account for the various other rather significant New Madrid Fault Zone events that have occurred since the 1811-1812 events. These would include the magnitude 6.0-6.5 quakes of 1843 and 1895 and the 3.6 event of February, 2013, amongst others. For further information, the following may be of assistance:

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/ge ... letin1.htm

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceu ... pFINAL.pdf

Thirdly, while the Euroamerican population of the area of concern was not necessarily substantial, there are, nonetheless, qualified records that do survive. Amongst these are those of William Clark (yes, that William Clark). At the time of the 1811-1812 events he was headquartered in St. Louis in his position as a United States government "Indian agent". While his communiques of the time do ask for assistance for the local area, there would appear to be no mention of a devastating human death toll.

.

Firstly- No, ALL the processes are not consistant. There has been two hundred years of erosion & development since!

Secondly-Yes, my 'speculations' DO account for the more recent quakes. And your statement is proof that you have not read the information in its entirety. It was one of the coldest winters on record. Not long after impact the ground re-froze holding the land until thaw, when the fault and massive amounts of land started to resettle southward, in normal direction of erosion. What do you think would happen?
You should do more study. Here is some excellent research that may help you to better understand what is occurring. The land is still resettling from 1811- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132652.htm
As the NMSZ may have already been active, it does not change the mechanism, and it has been determined that a deep fault can not produce a surface shockwave.

Thirdly- William Clark in St. Louis would know nothing of anything to the south, or would he care, he was going west! AND!< Since the Lewis and Clark expedition was between 1804-1806 and the fact that there is no mention of Clark being in St. Louis in 1811, I can't see how he would know anything about these events:
http://explorestlouis.com/visit-explore ... adventure/
Are you making false statements in some cover-up attempt? Have you put ANY serious study into this?

The Kilmichael Structure is still called a "structure" because it has yet to be determined. [Maybe] the reason it is also so misunderstood is because it was from a comet, not an asteroid, just as The Carolina Bays. Cometary material is incased in ice and has totally different effects than just a burning rock! Most of the meteors were of only ice and sand combined with the cold weather produced highly unusual circumstances.

SO, nothing to conflict with my hypothesis yet, try again!
You will have to give much more study into this if you want to find the facts.
Study up on some Chickasaw history:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~okmur ... ulture.htm
"At the beginning of the 1700s, the Chickasaw population in Tennessee was estimated to be between three and four thousand...","The demise of the Chickasaw Nation came as the white traders came and happened within fifty years..."?
"...In 1702 Iberville noted that the Chickasaw indicated they had seven to eight hundred guns..."! http://www.thechickasawvillages.com/dec ... _1700.html Note how strong they were before the great tribes real demise, instantly, on December 16, 1811!

I understand how badly you want to prove me wrong and the silly current belief system correct, but present theories are a joke and my hypothesis covers every detail, no exceptions. It does become frustrating to see so many not even try to put the study needed into this. I believe that this speaks volumes about our current society and scientific community, as well as a badly slacking educational system. Change my attitude!
I do want you all to learn the truths behind the myths...

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi nacom -

Thanks for the quick review. The northern outflow appears especially important.

If you look at the Peistocene- Holocene transition, you can see that the ice/temperature peak gets clippped from the usual pattern.

I think that the Pacific Current was warmr during the last Pleistocene glacial cycle. This is counter intuitive, but is appears the warmer moister air resulted in snow/ice cover in "Canada", which reflected sunlight back into space, resulting in lower globgal temperatures.

It looks like what happened was the one of the Holocene Start comt fragment impaccts had an effect on the Pacific Current, either through outflow passing north and then through the Berring Straits, or by a direct hit.

Colder, dryer air led to less snow/ice cover in "Canada", led to more sunlight absorbed, led to warmer global temperature, and so on and so on and so on. This was after the initial "nuclear winter" from cometary dust loading og the atmosphere.

The southern outlow of the ensuing meltwater appears to have occured relatively late. The later meltwater drainage appears to have led to some confusion as to what went on.

[E.P. Grondine]

I will let the defense rest for now. I have just recently contacted some good people that may be of help and will be quite busy as well, so Thanks-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSRTmSDjLCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWVW-Pa0Ohc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwaYIwy03l4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUGTFsd3xeg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPRIihu3120

[Nacon]

[quote] Kalopin [quote]

Firstly- No, ALL the processes are not consistant. There has been two hundred years of erosion & development since!

Secondly-Yes, my 'speculations' DO account for the more recent quakes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132652.htm


Thirdly- William Clark in St. Louis would know nothing of anything to the south, or would he care, he was going west!

Are you making false statements in some cover-up attempt? Have you put ANY serious study into this?

The Kilmichael Structure is still called a "structure" because it has yet to be determined. [Maybe] the reason it is also so misunderstood is because it was from a comet, not an asteroid, just as The Carolina Bays.



1) Kindly account for the deeply layered (and datable) sedimentary sequence of the Embayment aquifer syncline. Would you be suggesting that these strata (and their geologic structure) are the result of recent erosional processes?

2) The cited article makes no reference to impact, but to the long term adjustments of mid-continental fault zones. This is not support of your speculations.

3) William Clark was appointed US Agent of Indian Affairs By Jefferson in 1807. Clark established his headquarters in St. Louis. He purchased property in the newly organized city in 1809 and 1811 and established a new residence on Main Street in 1811(Buckley 2008). He was governor of the of the Missouri Territory from 1813-1820. He was Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1822-1838. He died in St Louis in 1838. His involvement with the area and the Amerindian inhabitants of the area is much more extensive that this brief on the topic. No apparent mention of devastating human loss in the area due to an impact during the time period under question. As may be expected of one in his position, Clark produced numerous reports.

4) The Kilmichael structure is dated to the late-early to early-late Paleocene (circa 62-59 million years BP. Thus, of no consequence to your speculations:

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007SE/final ... 119199.htm

.

[Nacon]

Hi nacom -

Thanks for the quick review. The northern outflow appears especially important.

If you look at the Peistocene- Holocene transition, you can see that the ice/temperature peak gets clippped from the usual pattern.

I think that the Pacific Current was warmr during the last Pleistocene glacial cycle. This is counter intuitive, but is appears the warmer moister air resulted in snow/ice cover in "Canada", which reflected sunlight back into space, resulting in lower globgal temperatures.

It looks like what happened was the one of the Holocene Start comt fragment impaccts had an effect on the Pacific Current, either through outflow passing north and then through the Berring Straits, or by a direct hit.

Colder, dryer air led to less snow/ice cover in "Canada", led to more sunlight absorbed, led to warmer global temperature, and so on and so on and so on. This was after the initial "nuclear winter" from cometary dust loading og the atmosphere.

The southern outlow of the ensuing meltwater appears to have occured relatively late. The later meltwater drainage appears to have led to some confusion as to what went on.

Hi E.P.

Realize that you are a proponent of the impact hypothesis as proposed by Firestone. Initially found this to be of interest. However (as you are aware),more recent research has brought this hypothesis into question.

In regards to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, merely wish to affirm that we are on the same timeline. As evidenced by the radiocarbon dating of the terminal moraine of the Des Moines Lobe, the initial wasting of the Wisconsin glaciation began circa 14,000 BP in the central US. This wasting proceeded until the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD), with the final wasting commencing at the end of the YD. Given the recent dating of the Mackenzie River breaching flux and its correlation to the onset of the YD, this may be more supportive of a terrestrial (as opposed to extra-terrestrial) causation for the rather short-lived re-advance.

.

[Kalopin]

1) Kindly account for the deeply layered (and datable) sedimentary sequence of the Embayment aquifer syncline. Would you be suggesting that these strata (and their geologic structure) are the result of recent erosional processes?

2) The cited article makes no reference to impact, but to the long term adjustments of mid-continental fault zones. This is not support of your speculations.

3) William Clark was appointed US Agent of Indian Affairs By Jefferson in 1807. Clark established his headquarters in St. Louis. He purchased property in the newly organized city in 1809 and 1811 and established a new residence on Main Street in 1811(Buckley 2008). He was governor of the of the Missouri Territory from 1813-1820. He was Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1822-1838. He died in St Louis in 1838. His involvement with the area and the Amerindian inhabitants of the area is much more extensive that this brief on the topic. No apparent mention of devastating human loss in the area due to an impact during the time period under question. As may be expected of one in his position, Clark produced numerous reports.

4) The Kilmichael structure is dated to the late-early to early-late Paleocene (circa 62-59 million years BP. Thus, of no consequence to your speculations:

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007SE/final ... 119199.htm

.

First- NO! I am suggesting that an impact produced the strata layers and dating sediments will not date the time that 'The Upland Formation" appeared!

Second- The land within the embayment is settling at a much faster rate than would be if it was so ancient. The fault was measured to move maybe two millimeters in a year. That is not tectonic activity. The deep fault did not create the surface design, neither did an ice sheet or inland seas. It could have only been created by an impact. This should not take too much study to realize.

Third- Would you be so kind as to find some information from The Office of Indian Affairs from between 1809-1822? Because either Clark or someone wasn't doing their job or the documents were lost, misplaced or just destroyed? William Clark's lack of information concerning these events is no evidence to the contrary. There is plenty of evidence that should be there, but is not. Every town had a newspaper and it is obvious that many accounts have been editted and distorted to purposely confuse. Just as your attempts at finding anything to negate and not trying at all to find the truth.
Do you not think that I know why this is not finding the investigation it deserves?

The Kilmichael Structure, as well as many geological features has been misdated. The volcanoes in Mississippi have nicknames and plenty of stories behind them, yet are currently believed by many to have been buried for 65 million years, not! A petrified forest in Mississippi has been dated to 36 million years old but has been basically untouched! The Carolina Bays are all on topsoil, would have easily eroded in such a time frame as 12,900 years [Younger Dryas extinction event-one theory]. They even had to stop the farmers from plowing through them. The meteors were only ice and sand. They dated the comet, and even then the dates are not accurate. The dating process is flawed! The design of the topography and this impact will prove that all these features could not have existed before this bolide redesigned the entire embayment!

So, you want to let all these idiots screw this up and just allow future generations to recieve the same passed on ignorance, or do you want to help correct such an historical mistake? You all see now? Do you understand how important this is to get right? "The writing is on the wall" Do you want me to apologize for so manys' misperceptions? I can only give you the truths and facts and expect an intelligent investigation, the rest is all on you...

P.S. Could you cite your references?
and, could you start another thread for E.P.?

[Ernie L]

................
There is plenty of evidence that should be there, but is not. Every town had a newspaper and it is obvious that many accounts have been editted and distorted to purposely confuse. .........................................

even the cat is shocked

Are you saying the lack of evidence is evidence itself ? .........I'm gonna use that if you don't mind

[Nacon]

Kalopin

First- NO! I am suggesting that an impact produced the strata layers and dating sediments will not date the time that 'The Upland Formation" appeared!

Second- The land within the embayment is settling at a much faster rate than would be if it was so ancient. The fault was measured to move maybe two millimeters in a year. That is not tectonic activity. The deep fault did not create the surface design, neither did an ice sheet or inland seas. It could have only been created by an impact. This should not take too much study to realize.

Third- Would you be so kind as to find some information from The Office of Indian Affairs from between 1809-1822? Because either Clark or someone wasn't doing their job or the documents were lost, misplaced or just destroyed? William Clark's lack of information concerning these events is no evidence to the contrary. There is plenty of evidence that should be there, but is not. Every town had a newspaper and it is obvious that many accounts have been editted and distorted to purposely confuse. Just as your attempts at finding anything to negate and not trying at all to find the truth.
Do you not think that I know why this is not finding the investigation it deserves?

The Kilmichael Structure, as well as many geological features has been misdated. The volcanoes in Mississippi have nicknames and plenty of stories behind them, yet are currently believed by many to have been buried for 65 million years, not! A petrified forest in Mississippi has been dated to 36 million years old but has been basically untouched! The Carolina Bays are all on topsoil, would have easily eroded in such a time frame as 12,900 years [Younger Dryas extinction event-one theory]. They even had to stop the farmers from plowing through them. The meteors were only ice and sand. They dated the comet, and even then the dates are not accurate. The dating process is flawed! The design of the topography and this impact will prove that all these features could not have existed before this bolide redesigned the entire embayment!

So, you want to let all these idiots screw this up and just allow future generations to recieve the same passed on ignorance, or do you want to help correct such an historical mistake? You all see now? Do you understand how important this is to get right? "The writing is on the wall" Do you want me to apologize for so manys' misperceptions? I can only give you the truths and facts and expect an intelligent investigation, the rest is all on you... :wink:

P.S. Could you cite your references?
and, could you start another thread for E.P.?



Where to begin...

1 & 2) The fault lines associated with the NMFZ lie below the Cretaceous and later sedimentary deposits of the Embayment. These fault lines are currently dated to a rather failed continental rupture that occurred circa 750 million years BP. Due to the, by definition, "V" shaped nature of the syncline, the depth to the fault bearing bedrock can vary in proximity to the edge line. For example, in the Memphis area, the depth can be as shallow as .62 miles (1 km). The deepest areas of the Embayment can exceed 1.62 miles (2.6 km+). The following two papers and accompanying two lay-oriented references should assist in your understanding of this and other aspects. Please do read thoroughly. Pay particular attention to Braile et al, 1986, Figures, pp. 14, 15.

http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/peopl ... aile86.pdf

http://www.ce.memphis.edu/Pezeshk/PDFs/ ... t_2010.pdf

http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/people/shor ... noise.html

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceu ... calDoc.php

3) Documentation by W. Clark is readily available. As to the Office of Indian Affairs, these files are now with the BIA. See below. This site is currently undergoing update and will accessible by the end of the month:

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide- ... .html#75.4

The most complete collection of other documentation by Clark can be found in the collections of the Kansas Historical Society:

http://www.kshs.org/p/william-clark-papers/13891

The dissertation by Buckley can be obtained here:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3004608/

4 &5) The various readers of these pages would likely appreciate the qualified documentation that would support these bold proclamations.

6) In the interests of civility, will refrain from obviously begged editorial commentary.

.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi E.P.

Realize that you are a proponent of the impact hypothesis as proposed by Firestone. Initially found this to be of interest. However (as you are aware),more recent research has brought this hypothesis into question.

In regards to the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, merely wish to affirm that we are on the same timeline. As evidenced by the radiocarbon dating of the terminal moraine of the Des Moines Lobe, the initial wasting of the Wisconsin glaciation began circa 14,000 BP in the central US. This wasting proceeded until the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD), with the final wasting commencing at the end of the YD. Given the recent dating of the Mackenzie River breaching flux and its correlation to the onset of the YD, this may be more supportive of a terrestrial (as opposed to extra-terrestrial) causation for the rather short-lived re-advance.

.

Hi nacom -

I am not too picky about priority, but actually in my book Man and Impact in the Americas I wrote about the Holocene Start Impact Event before Firestone et al.

The bizarre 14C dates that attracted him to the problem threw me, and I had nowhere ner the knowledge that Kennett had of Clovis sites. Firestone goes off on his own astrphysical tangents, while I tend to be a low brow determinist.

I know Boslough, Morrison's associate, he leader of the incompetent sceptics, is angling for a NASA data processing contract for NEOs observational data at University of New Mexico. Details may be found over at the Comic Tusk (http://cosmictusk.com).

Boslough's associates lab work bares comparison with kalopin's "work", as they did not follow the protocols of a very difficult
extraction process. End of confusion on dates. We and everyone else will be using the ones established be Firestone's team from the 14C mess tht existed earlier, and the new refined calibration curves. By the way, I think the 14C spike is due to neutrons released in impact. I have not worked out the full fragment impact series yet, nor the dust loading sequence.

Thans for pointing out that the YD outflows are much later then the onset of the melt.

I do not have the most recent dating for the northen outflow - as you can see, I am a litttle more focused on southeast North America. (I hope to contact you privately via PM later this week.)

I suspect that the intial change in the temperature of the nothern Pacific Current was caused by impact somewhere near the Bering Straits.

This may explain the unusual plateau seen in the global temperature data, which differs from the "usual' glacial cycle.

[E.P. Grondine]

There is plenty of evidence that should be there, but is not.

I've already told you where to look for the acounts of the earthquake.

Every town had a newspaper and it is obvious that many accounts have been editted and distorted to purposely confuse. Just as your attempts at finding anything to negate and not trying at all to find the truth.

NO, every town did not have a newspaper.

Do you not think that I know why this is not finding the investigation it deserves?

We know why. Imaginary phenomenon to support and imaginary physics.
Technically, Confirmation Bias sliding into paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur.

The volcanoes in Mississippi have nicknames and plenty of stories behind them,

As I mentioned to you earlier, we're all interested in thermal springs and the First Peoples' use of them.

The meteors were only ice and sand.

There were no meteors in 1811.

So, you want to let all these idiots screw this up and just allow future generations to recieve the same passed on ignorance,

Of course.

could you start another thread for E.P.?[/i]

[Kalopin]

Kalopin

Do you not think that I know why this is not finding the investigation it deserves?

So, you want to let all these idiots screw this up?




Where to begin...

1 & 2) The fault lines associated with the NMFZ lie below the Cretaceous and later sedimentary deposits of the Embayment. These fault lines are currently dated to a rather failed continental rupture that occurred circa 750 million years BP. Due to the, by definition, "V" shaped nature of the syncline, the depth to the fault bearing bedrock can vary in proximity to the edge line. For example, in the Memphis area, the depth can be as shallow as .62 miles (1 km). The deepest areas of the Embayment can exceed 1.62 miles (2.6 km+). The following two papers and accompanying two lay-oriented references should assist in your understanding of this and other aspects. Please do read thoroughly. Pay particular attention to Braile et al, 1986, Figures, pp. 14, 15.

http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/peopl ... aile86.pdf

http://www.ce.memphis.edu/Pezeshk/PDFs/ ... t_2010.pdf

http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/people/shor ... noise.html

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceu ... calDoc.php

3) Documentation by W. Clark is readily available. As to the Office of Indian Affairs, these files are now with the BIA. See below. This site is currently undergoing update and will accessible by the end of the month:

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide- ... .html#75.4

The most complete collection of other documentation by Clark can be found in the collections of the Kansas Historical Society:

http://www.kshs.org/p/william-clark-papers/13891

The dissertation by Buckley can be obtained here:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3004608/

4 &5) The various readers of these pages would likely appreciate the qualified documentation that would support these bold proclamations.

6) In the interests of civility, will refrain from obviously begged editorial commentary.

.

I have studied all the documentation concerning current beliefs. What you and they do not understand [for some reason] is that the land throughout the valley was tossed and flipped revealing older sedimentary layers. So, of course you will find much older sediments on the surface as it was exhumed from an impact. Is this too difficult to comprehend?

Understand that Reelfoot Lake coincides with the same 'upward' topography of the entire embayment. All this land was moved simultaneously. This is enough to reveal that the entire embayment was redesigned at this same moment in time. This means that every structure, every geological feature throughout the valley has to be younger than two centuries! This does not take a rocket scientist!

I have searched for many years to find more information from The Office of Indian Affairs. I have contacted every place available. Obviously YOU are one of the ones to have this discussion with. I hope to find some missing info. at your new site

William Clark did not make any account of the details of these events, because he was not involved. He already had too much to deal with. His lack of interest has no bearing on these events. he explored the northwest, not the southeast!

I doubt, no, I know that you will not be able to find anything to lessen the possibility of a meteor impact. The question is; Can you find ANYTHING to support that it was just tectonic activity and had nothing to do with all the unusual occurrances?
And the answer is-NO, you can not!

You have been "backed against a wall" and are attempting to distort facts that are obviously 'in your face'.
All the documentation you need and that is currently available [because you all are too 'chicken' to do any actual data collection] is right at this website:
http://koolkreations.wix.com/kalopins-legacy ,"Kalopins Legacy","wix","documents and links","A Few Comments on 1811". Please read and try to understand in its entirety!

I would have plenty more documentation if this would find a little more honesty and intelligence. This information has been made public for going on four years now. People have went all the way through college in this time learning the same ignorant bs that you have been subjected to. This makes it more difficult to convince truths to distorted 'drilled in' belief systems. Students were told these were facts, tested and graded on NON-SENSE!
The volcanoes in Mississippi were not buried 65 million years ago, but on Dec. 16, 1811.
The petrified forest in Mississippi was formed at this same moment.
The Carolina Bays have witnesses to their creation- Captain Robert Alexander of Lincoln, North Carolina reported MANY witnessing major meteor storms on November 20 and 22, 1811, as well as before, during and after the first majot quake!

I do not care what your rhetoric may be. It only makes you all look like the idiots that you all have made yourselves out to be. I have done the study. I have NO doubt as to the accuracy. You all can not answer not one simple question, that EVERY school should be teaching and every student should be learning.

My book was written as a disclaimer and I already knew how it would be recieved. You see I have been subjected to this same ignorance as you all, but I, unlike all you sheeple, am not willing to accept such delusions. You all had better try harder to study, learn, understand, AND promote the truths [if you really care?]. This has an importance overlooked by most, but if this becomes public knowledge, it SHOULD change the direction of military focus?
As our common enemy is NOT one another !

.
P.S. As I am sure you are aware, your link to The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided NO information concerning these events. Nothing at all from 1811-1812, thanks!

[E.P. Grondine]

HI Ernie -

[img]<iframe%20width="420"%20height="315"%20src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GlcbjrBcXD ... n></iframe>[/img]

Okay, Michelle, how do we embed videos here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlcbjrBcXDg

[Ernie L]

HI Ernie -



Okay, Michelle, how do we embed videos here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlcbjrBcXDg

That explains a lot E.P.

however some may have come as stow aways on that ship..how else would you explain this

[Nacon]

Kalopin

I have studied all the documentation concerning current beliefs. What you and they do not understand [for some reason] is that the land throughout the valley was tossed and flipped revealing older sedimentary layers. So, of course you will find much older sediments on the surface as it was exhumed from an impact. Is this too difficult to comprehend?


William Clark did not make any account of the details of these events, because he was not involved. He already had too much to deal with. His lack of interest has no bearing on these events. he explored the northwest, not the southeast!

I doubt, no, I know that you will not be able to find anything to lessen the possibility of a meteor impact. The question is; Can you find ANYTHING to support that it was just tectonic activity and had nothing to do with all the unusual occurrances?
And the answer is-NO, you can not!

You have been "backed against a wall" and are attempting to distort facts that are obviously 'in your face'.
All the documentation you need and that is currently available [because you all are too 'chicken' to do any actual data collection] is right at this website:
http://koolkreations.wix.com/kalopins-legacy ,"Kalopins Legacy","wix","documents and links","A Few Comments on 1811". Please read and try to understand in its entirety!

P.S. As I am sure you are aware, your link to The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided NO information concerning these events. Nothing at all from 1811-1812, thanks! :roll:[/quote]



1) Your first bolded statement would not be consistent with the documented stratigraphy of the Embayment as already presented in numerous references. Were an impact to have been involved, the temporally consistent bedding would no longer be intact.

2) Your concepts in regards to Clark's post - Corps of Discovery years would appear to be more than lacking. Please do study his life after the Corp's return.

3) All qualified and documented research, be it public or private, supports tectonic activity as the causation of the New Madrid events of 1811-1812. You must understand where the burden of proof lies here. Should you wish to contradict current understandings, it is your responsibility to generate and submit a thorough and well documented paper that supports your contentions. To date, it would not appear that you have adequate data to even begin to attempt such an undertaking.

4) Have had the dubious distinction of subjecting myself to your website on two occasions. Lack of substance duly noted.

5) From the BIA reference document listings:

75.2 RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR RELATING TO INDIAN AFFAIRS 1794-1824
75.3 RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF INDIAN TRADE 1795-1830
75.4 GENERAL RECORDS OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 1801-1952
75.5 RECORDS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND HIS IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES 1871-1976
75.5.1 Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
75.5.2 Records of the Offices of the Chief Clerk and the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs
75.5.3 Records of Assistants to the Commissioner
75.5.4 Records of the Finance Officer and Chief Administrative Officer
75.6 RECORDS RELATING TO INDIAN REMOVAL 1817-86
75.7 RECORDS OF THE LAND DIVISION 1797-1972
75.7.1 General records
75.7.2 Surveying and allotting records
75.7.3 Records relating to land sales and leases
75.7.4 Records relating to claims
75.7.5 Enrollment records
75.7.6 Other records (Emphasis added)

The above does not include the many dozens of agency records.

In regards to the Flores, MS "Petrified Forest": Not a great deal of technical information on this one. However, the official site for this attraction notes that it has been known of since the mid-19th century. Thus, there would not have been adequate time for fossilization under your unevidenced scenario.

.