Page 3 of 4
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:27 pm
by Forum Monk
All quotations from Knuckle sandwhich:
Another goofy non-starter hypothesis.
Welcome to the forum.
There wouldn't be anyone in the blast zone because Canada was under a few miles of ice at that time.
Except the part where people actually lived.
It definitely didn't wipe out any Solutreans, they were gone 7000 years before this happened.
There were no proof of solutreans in NA but I wonder if it includes the solutreans who when still in Spain up until 15000BP?
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:43 pm
by Knuckle sandwhich
Thanks for the welcome.
The meteor is supposed to hit the Laurentite ice sheet at 10,900 BP/12,900 Cal BP, which was till very big at that time and still covered most of Canada, while the Cordilleran covered much of the rest. There wouldn't have been anyone anywhere near the impact.
As to the Solutreans, ok, I did exaggerate a bit, but the point is they were long gone by the time this is supposed to have happened.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:51 pm
by Forum Monk
If you check the article posted just before this and look at the figure 9 mentioned, the extent of the ice sheet in Canada is illustrated and the sites examined were free from ice. The authors have considered all of this.
I am skeptical of the claims myself but have presented the evidence as a service to the readers. But I will say, I am really starting to like this hypothesis. Nevertheless some pretty big questions remain.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:46 pm
by Knuckle sandwhich
Well, it is an interesting paper (I've read that one before). It does show pretty good evidence for a meteor strike. It doesn't demonstrate the claim that said event had anything to do with the onset of the Younger Dryas re-glaciation period or any "megafauna" extinctions.
The answer to the extinction of so many animals is likely to be a very complicated one, and so far I don't think we are even scratching the surface on answering it.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:15 pm
by rich
From the link in the first post on this:
http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.asp?id=8625
The timing attached to this theory of about 12,900 years ago is consistent with the known disappearances in North America of the wooly mammoth population and the first distinct human society to inhabit the continent, known as the Clovis civilization. At that time, climatic history suggests the Ice Age should have been drawing to a close, but a rapid change known as the Younger Dryas event, instead ushered in another 1,300 years of glacial conditions. A cataclysmic explosion consistent with West’s theory would have the potential to create the kind of atmospheric turmoil necessary to produce such conditions.
"The kind of evidence we are finding does suggest that climate change at the end of the last Ice Age was the result of a catastrophic event," Tankersley says.
Not saying this proves it - but it does show a possible if not probable correlation at the least.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:27 pm
by Forum Monk
An ET collision is not necessary to explain the climatic situation. The cycle of ice ages has been happening like a heart beat for millions of years. The Younger Dryas is an anomaly but this in itself is not necessarily evidence.
The presence of rare-earths, iridium, fullerenes, etc in a thin strata at 12900BP is a smoking gun supporting the ET hypothesis. Odd that only one European site thus far shows the same evidence. I also seem to recall, in deference to Rokcet's racist asteroid, that the destruction of mega-fauna was selective: not all species died at that time. Why?
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:29 pm
by Knuckle sandwhich
Timing isn't even close to causality and there are Clovis dates that occur 100 years after that. Look at short-faced bear, and saber-toothed cats, they were gone a thousand years before this. Scimitar cats and American lions went out a thousand years after it. Some "megafauna" never did go extinct. In addition, mammoth occurred pretty much everywhere in the temperate world, not just the new world.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:30 pm
by rich
May have depended on dietary needs of the species that went extinct or maybe poisoning from the event that those critters were more susceptible to.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:34 pm
by rich
Knuckle Sandwich wrote:
Timing isn't even close to causality and there are Clovis dates that occur 100 years after that. Look at short-faced bear, and saber-toothed cats, they were gone a thousand years before this.
At least they were gone where we've dug. To truly establish that you would need to know their migratory habits also and such and such etc.
In otherwords - just because we ain't found 'em yet doesn't mean they weren't there. Doesn't mean they were either.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:39 pm
by rich
BTW - welcome to the forum Knuckle sandwich!
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:40 pm
by Knuckle sandwhich
Well, that's what we have to work with right now. The caveats you mention will always exist, even if we find a thousand more of them. Using those caveats to develop hypotheses is always trouble.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:41 pm
by Knuckle sandwhich
rich wrote:BTW - welcome to the forum Knuckle sandwich!
Thanks! Looks like a neat place with lots of good discussions.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:46 pm
by rich
You're welcome. Really good topics and peeps. But don't mind me - I'm usually a flake! Enjoy the forum.
The other aspect is the event may not have been one but a series lasting for whatever amount of years - not sure if they've looked into this but I think it was mentioned at one point.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:08 pm
by Forum Monk
It is believed that mammoths were very selective in their diets, much like today's elephants. They required much more nutrient rich grasses than could be found on the tundra so it is certain they lived below the line of glaciation. But if the habitat goes, the beast soon follows.
As for the "I wonder if they considered..." scenarios. These guys/gals are a team of at least two dozen reseachers from all disciplines. You can be sure "they thought of it" and they know they don't have all the evidence to support their proposal. They are only saying it a common event that could plausibly explain the evidence they do have. They are not blundering into this but researching slowly and methodically.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:10 pm
by rich
Figured so but wasn't sure. Kinda thought it was mentioned somewhere tho.