Archaeologica.org

Helllo everyone,

Dealing with impact is the ultimate intelligence test.
Humans will either do it or die - recieve the Darwin award, in other words.

As the nanodiamond evidence has been confirmed by 14 or so major international laboratories entirely separte from West,
Dalton's campaign has not taken off, except among a very select group of fools.

"I do hope that he (Kennett) does not try to fall back on native american folklore for "evidence" however."

min, I doubt if when cuneiform archives are recovered from sites in Canaan, their contents will affect your religious views.

As far as Native American historical traditions and tradition keeping goes, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

The effects of the YD impacts on human populations in North America has been demonstrated by tool production and quarry use.

Personally, I am of the opinion that to get a Bachelors in Archaeology, the student should be able to shoot and field dress a deer or other ruminant.
A docotorate should require the ability to make the hunting tool, hunt with it, slaughter the animal, make the fire, cook, and then eat.

Most archaeologists I have met could not find a wallow or salt lick if their lives depended on it.
Many archaeologists act as if Native American sites were built by aliens,
while the Nuage fringe believes that they were indeed built by aliens.

As there are detailed pollen studies from mammoth excavations, and while the paleo climate studies are nice, those excavation reports contain more detailed data on the local environments.

As far as Kenosha goes, the Shawnee salt licks in what is now southern Illinois are more interesting, as are the salt licks south of today's St Louis.

Mammoths migrated north south seasonally.

Mammoths could swim, using their trunks as snorkels.

Mammoths required 200 kilograms of fodder per day. Any interuption for more than a brief time led to death.

Thus the dust load and "nuclear winter"s following the YD COMET FRAGMENT impacts led to a number of species extinctions.

Those extinctions were remembered the people living here at the time.

The national symbol of China is the dragon.
Its use began at the time of the YD impacts.

Data seldom affects good theories, as people believe what they want to believe.

My own work was done entirely separate and without knowledge of Firestone et al's work, and it certainly differs from what they first published.
For that matter, my own hypotheses have been substantially improved.

FM, please use your real name, so we'll know whose stupidity to laugh at in the future, say about 2 months from now.

As far as Native American historical traditions and tradition keeping goes, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Folklore, E.P. I understand you cling to it because you think it supports your theory but its all horseshit regardless. And cuneiform finds in the ANE have been at the forefront of trashing the absurd 'history' which priests concocted based on their silly bible.

When I first "broke into" this thread, my premise was once a theory lost mainstream support the theory is essentially "dead". We observe shortly after Firestone published his theory and for a year or so afterward, the theory found favor and was given serious consideration as a possible answer to an unknown. Recent studies have now failed to reproduce the results or are explained by other causes. As a result the theory has come under attack extending to the credibility of the key proponents.

I will present the evidence against the theory, including the relevant parts of the Pinter "Requiem" paper : The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem
Nicholas Pinter, Andrew C. Scott, Tyrone L. Daulton, Andrew Podoll, Christian Koeberl, R. Scott Anderson, Scott E. Ishman and other published studies.

Now I am quite sure Mr. Grondine is quite prepared to answer the evidence. My purpose is not to argue, fight or even defend, but to show the counter evidence and let the board reach its own conclusions. If new evidence emerges "in about two months" as perhaps, implied by Mr. Grondine's continued attempt to ridicule me, so be it. We can look at the evidence, evaluate it for what its worth, and if my current point of view is wrong I will happily admit it, because I was, in the beginning, a proponent. But I am troubled by the new studies and for now convinced they represent severe difficulties for the Firestone theory.

Forum Monk wrote: When I first "broke into" this thread, my premise was once a theory lost mainstream support the theory is essentially "dead". We observe shortly after Firestone published his theory and for a year or so afterward, the theory found favor and was given serious consideration as a possible answer to an unknown. Recent studies have now failed to reproduce the results or are explained by other causes. As a result the theory has come under attack extending to the credibility of the key proponents.

I will present the evidence against the theory, including the relevant parts of the Pinter "Requiem" paper : The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem
Nicholas Pinter, Andrew C. Scott, Tyrone L. Daulton, Andrew Podoll, Christian Koeberl, R. Scott Anderson, Scott E. Ishman and other published studies.

Now I am quite sure Mr. Grondine is quite prepared to answer the evidence. My purpose is not to argue, fight or even defend, but to show the counter evidence and let the board reach its own conclusions. If new evidence emerges "in about two months" as perhaps, implied by Mr. Grondine's continued attempt to ridicule me, so be it. We can look at the evidence, evaluate it for what its worth, and if my current point of view is wrong I will happily admit it, because I was, in the beginning, a proponent. But I am troubled by the new studies and for now convinced they represent severe difficulties for the Firestone theory.

Hi FM -

You did not "break into" this thread. Its simply that you are not familiar with the background, and have absolutely no knowledge of it.

First off, I did my own work entirely separate from Firestone, Kennett, et al.

Second, your summary of the history of the debate over comet impact is not accurate.
In fact it has been going on for 30 years. The principals of the "debate" are Muller and Morrison (Nemesis hypothesis) versus Clube and Napier (periodic gravitational perturbation injection, and recent impacts of fragments of Comet Encke).

My own work and that of Firestone were performed independently. Firestone first started with the hypothesis of supernova as an injection mechanism.

My own focus was (is but I've had a stroke) on the recovery of recent impact data, cometary and asteroidal. (If I could find a recent asteroid impact using historical records, then there would have been substantial meteorite remains. My own work covers far more events that those at the YD.). I had more interest in the Ancient Near East and Minoans than in Native America, but my interests got refocused, and quite roughly at that.

Muller and Morrison's hypothesis has had institutional support, as there was a general denial that comets impact, an assertion not based on any evidence, and in fact in contradiction to much of it.

Resources were devoted to the asteroids' only impact hypothesis, and it is an institutional bias. NASA's responsibilitites substantially change if comets form a large part of the impact hazard.

Thus to start your studies to gain a minimal competency, you will need to read some 30 years of material, starting with Muller's initial book and Clube and Napier's two books. The other published studies will amount to about a year's reading. There are also the KT "debate" materials to read in particular Keller's work and the responses to it, and very importantly, Chaterjee's work on Shiva.

I think that the links to my own reportage opn this starting in 1997 are given here in the who are you? section.

As far as the YD "hypothesis" goes, you don't understand who the mainstream are, and have no idea of the viciousness of this "debate".

Nor do you have any knowledge of the recent current confirmation of that "hypothesis" by some 13 major laboratories, which leads to the first of your bone head assertions:"Recent studies have now failed to reproduce the results or are explained by other causes."
Links to that paper may be found at http://cosmictusk.com. You need to read that in its entirety as well before commenting.

The next of your bone head remarks:
"As a result the theory has come under attack extending to the credibility of the key proponents."
was dealt with above. You simply aren't familiar with the "debate", nor its viciousness.

As far as Mr. Grondine's willingness to respond to you, it depends on the time/resources/health available to him. Its not like you're going to award me a Nobel Prize, or a whole big stack of cash, and I am pretty damn tired. What do I get if I win this "debate"?

Let's see, do I have my time wasted by a bone head who does not have the minimal comptency to know what the hell he is talking about, or do I continue with interesting work and conversation with interesting people?

As far as attacking my own credibility, feel free to conduct an ad hominem attack.
Feel free to search for pictures of me with Fifi and a crack pipe, or me sodomizing young boys.
BUT please use your real name. That will at least give me the reward of your humiliation.

I was simply a private citizen, a space journalist with a life long interest in the Minoans.
Now I have stroke damage, and have many difficulties to handle, including real hits to typing and memory, among other deficits.

You still haven't told me who you are, and why I should spend any time dealing with your ignorance here.

May I suggest that you get back to the people here about a year from now, when you have read the materials mentioned above, and actually know what the hell you are talking about?

I read several feet of materials for each of my major surveys, and fully acknowledged/acknowledge my limitations.
And I acknowledge my mistakes, and I have made plenty of them.

While I relied/rely on the generousity of many specialists, you haven't told me why I should extend that courtesy to you, as your sole intent appears to be not to find the truth, but simply to waste time and confuse others.

E.P. you have been granted a lot of latitude here in this topic. But I will not stand for personal attacks or name calling. Monk was respectful and thoughtful in his posts and I advise you to act in the same manner. Also, it is none of your business as to the real identity of anyone who posts here.

It is rare that I step into a discussion but your behavior is out of line and if you cannot abide by these rules I will suspend your account.

I acknowledge the debate circulating around the hypothesized, YD impact is vicious and polarizing. Nevertheless there is no need to review 30 years of research of historical impact data. I think most people are aware of the possibility of an ET impactor. It has been all over the popular media even while science debates the probabilities of such an event. Let us acknowledge from the outset that such impacts are possible, their effects can be global and they can extinguish species. For the time being, I am only interested in the YD impact proposed by Firestone, et al. Archaeologica is a discussion forum and so we should be free to discuss the evidence that is publically available. Mr. Grondine, if you could post a link to the paper in which 13 labs corroborate the findings of the Firestone team or at least give some indication of which journal the results are published, I would love to see it, because search as I may both at Cosmic Tusk and a major U.S. University research database, I can not find it.

My interest, as I said, is not to debate, argue or fight, but to initiate a discussion. I confess, the tone in this thread has put me off a bit and so I need to consider how to proceed.

I think most people are aware of the possibility of an ET impactor.

Yes, Monk, but are they overstating the effect of the impact? Chicxulub's impactor is estimated at the size of Mount Everest yet, even if it did wipe out the dinosaurs ( and that is in doubt ) it certainly did not end life on earth. Here we are.

We live in an age of hype. Everyone has their pet theory about how the world will end yet the world goes on.

Hi FM -

Not taking my advice, I see.

Forum Monk wrote: I acknowledge the debate circulating around the hypothesized, YD impact is vicious and polarizing.

Something of an understatement

Forum Monk wrote: Nevertheless there is no need to review 30 years of research of historical impact data.

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you did, enough to state whether a hypothesis is "dead" or not.

Forum Monk wrote: I think most people are aware of the possibility of an ET impactor.

FM, it's not a "possibility", its a "certainty". The only things that are not known is what will hit and when it will hit. At current population loads, a small one will result in either 60,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 deaths.

Forum Monk wrote: It has been all over the popular media even while science debates the probabilities of such an event. Let us acknowledge from the outset that such impacts are possible, their effects can be global and they can extinguish species.

The recent "smaller" ones have killed millions of people. The readers of popular media are beginning to realize this.

There does not have to be an impact for the climatic effects of a large cometary dust load to kill millions of people.

Forum Monk wrote: For the time being, I am only interested in the YD impact proposed by Firestone, et al. Archaeologica is a discussion forum and so we should be free to discuss the evidence that is publically available. Mr. Grondine, if you could post a link to the paper in which 13 labs corroborate the findings of the Firestone team or at least give some indication of which journal the results are published, I would love to see it, because search as I may both at Cosmic Tusk and a major U.S. University research database, I can not find it.

A BIG APOLOGY, FM. The link at the Tusk has been removed.
For the nanodiamond evidence:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54163707/Evid ... mat-enigma

For the population decline at the YD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54609855/Cont ... th-America

Forum Monk wrote: My interest, as I said, is not to debate, argue or fight, but to initiate a discussion. I confess, the tone in this thread has put me off a bit and so I need to consider how to proceed.

I did not realize that the link on nanodiamond confirmation had been removed from the Tusk.

Hi Michelle -

MichelleH wrote: Monk was respectful and thoughtful in his posts and I advise you to act in the same manner.

I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
The First Peoples remembered. They were here.

"My purpose is not to argue, fight or even defend, but to show the counter evidence and let the board reach its own conclusions. If new evidence emerges "in about two months" as perhaps, implied by Mr. Grondine's continued attempt to ridicule me, so be it. My purpose is not to argue, fight or even defend, but to show the counter evidence and let the board reach its own conclusions. If new evidence emerges "in about two months" as perhaps, implied by Mr. Grondine's continued attempt to ridicule me, so be it. We can look at the evidence, evaluate it for what its worth, and if my current point of view is wrong I will happily admit it, because I was, in the beginning, a proponent. and if my current point of view is wrong I will happily admit it, because I was, in the beginning, a proponent."

Strange fellow, FM.

A "proponent" who now definitively declares the YD comet impact hypothesis dead, instead of stating that that was his current point of view at the outset. I try to use the term, "my best current estimate" or "my guess is".

MichelleH wrote: Also, it is none of your business as to the real identity of anyone who posts here.

One of the features I liked about the Cambridge Conference was that there was no anonymity.

FM - "We can look at the evidence, evaluate it for what its worth"

I owe FM an apology. I'll try to be more specific in my citations, something more than look over there, so that outsiders to impact research can keep up.

What we in the impact community are involved in is a struggle for real money to deal with a real problem. The asteroid sample return mission will cost $1,000 million, and the first NASA space telescope to find these things will be another $1,000 million.

All –

“Personally, I am of the opinion that to get a Bachelors in Archaeology, the
student should be able to shoot and field dress a deer or other ruminant.
A docotorate (sic) should require the ability to make the hunting tool, hunt with it, slaughter the animal, make the fire, cook, and then eat.”

Given the author’s definition above, I can say without reservation that I am not only qualified to enter this arena, but am into some forty odd years of postdoctoral work.

Und so……..

This thread irresistibly reminds me of that old saying

“To the man who only has one tool, a hammer, all the world is a nail.”

The assertion that the impact of an astral body (or bodies) is the only qualifying event for megafaunal – or any other – extinction is just as false as the assertion that, ipso facto, the Clovis people were the earliest inhabitants of the Americas.

Both are classic examples of putting the conclusion before the premise.

To those who really absolootely gotta have that one and only answer to All,

It’s already been done, to wit:

"Well, it's not the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. That's 42.”

~ Hitchiker’s Guide to the Universe


John

john wrote:
The assertion that the impact of an astral body (or bodies) is the only qualifying event for megafaunal – or any other – extinction is just as false as the assertion that, ipso facto, the Clovis people were the earliest inhabitants of the Americas.

Thanks for pointing out the typo - efing stroke.

A comparison to the Clovis First debate is informative.
I think that that ran for 70 years or so: roughly 1930-2011.
The problem here is that Tunguska type impacts have been occurring about 1 time in 100 years.
Thus the time for paradigm change in the archaeological community must be speeded along, or with certainty people will die.

As far as my intensity goes, when I started work on this topic, the number of people looking for these things were less than the number of people working in a McDonald's. It's better now, but still far from adequate to the hazard.

As regards extinctions, I made no such assertion for smaller extinctions.
Not only hunting and normal climate change can be causative agents.
New diseases will also work well.
Note the effects of European cattle diseases on Eastern Bison populations,
and/or the effects of European diseases on Native American populations.

But for the larger extinctions that principle does hold - they were caused by impact.

john wrote: To those who really absolootely gotta have that one and only answer to All,

It’s already been done, to wit:

"Well, it's not the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. That's 42.”

~ Hitchiker’s Guide to the Universe

John

42? No, its not.
The answer is 26 million.

Hi FM -
Links here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-l ... 97309.html