This End Up

[E.P. Grondine]

Tony, you have to learn to accept that you may be wrong.

We all understand your hypothesis,
and are knowledgeable enough to KNOW that hypothesis is wrong.

1) There were many people living in that area at that time. If something had of hit, we'd know about it.
2) I am familiar with their writings and records,and have been since the 1970's.
2) If something had of hit, I' myself would have written it up in the 1990's.

It is what you do when you discover that you have been wrong that separates the better intellects from the rest.
Working in the field of impact, I myself have had to tell many people that they have made mistakes,
and pointed the reasons why out to them.

You have written your site, and presented your data.
If you now want to state a new hypothesis,
i.e. that the gravitational effects of a nearby comet led to global seismic activity,
then do so clearly, and that hypothesis may be examined by some people.
I will not be among them as I have some very very serious work to do.

You had one of the top geologists of the south east come by here.
Would you please ask him kindly for some of his time?
If you are polite enough, he may give you some of his time to point you to some books you have to read.

A final tip from a person who has presented new hypothesis for many years now:
If people do not think you are right, be pleasant to them,
and do not exhibit obsessive behavior.
It makes it easier for them to change their minds.

I've had my caffeine and nicotine, and exercised my fingers, and now need to get to my work.

[Minimalist]

.are you even trying to understand what you are reading, or is it that you just want me to go over every single detail once again

Please, anything but that.


I've already dismissed you as a lunatic.

[circumspice]

.are you even trying to understand what you are reading, or is it that you just want me to go over every single detail once again

Please, anything but that.


I've already dismissed you as a lunatic.

lmao!

[Kalopin]

Tony, you have to learn to accept that you may be wrong.

We all understand your hypothesis,
and are knowledgeable enough to KNOW that hypothesis is wrong.

this is not one of those 'know it all' moments...

1) There were many people living in that area at that time. If something had of hit, we'd know about it.

the Chickasaw had the U.S. calvary remove more than five thousand squatters from 1809-1811...

2) I am familiar with their writings and records,and have been since the 1970's.
2) If something had of hit, I' myself would have written it up in the 1990's.

It is what you do when you discover that you have been wrong that separates the better intellects from the rest.
Working in the field of impact, I myself have had to tell many people that they have made mistakes,
and pointed the reasons why out to them.

You have written your site, and presented your data.

If you now want to state a new hypothesis,
i.e. that the gravitational effects of a nearby comet led to global seismic activity,
then do so clearly,...

...and it's not the gravity but the cosmic ray interactions from the solar winds...[...very low frequencies, high intensity pressure waves full of charged particles...],[remember?,baduh, we've gone over this...]

...and that hypothesis may be examined by some people.
I will not be among them as I have some very very serious work to do.

You had one of the top geologists of the south east come by here.
Would you please ask him kindly for some of his time?
If you are polite enough, he may give you some of his time to point you to some books you have to read.

A final tip from a person who has presented new hypothesis for many years now:
If people do not think you are right, be pleasant to them,
and do not exhibit obsessive behavior.
It makes it easier for them to change their minds.

I've had my caffeine and nicotine, and exercised my fingers, and now need to get to my work.

...this is more like one of those 'reality intrudes' moments...

do you think it would be nice if we could get this info. out in time for your generation to understand, a little bit more about how all this came to be. before passing on...?
[is this 'really' too difficult to understand?]

[Kalopin]

E.P. "what is known" concerning the December 16, 1811 event is that every single detail describes a meteor impact...and, [if you were to actually investigate,] you will see the satellite view concurs, as every single line in the topography surrounds this central location, in northeastern Marshall county, Mississippi. [...and anyone with enough knowledge in stratigraphy can easily see this [and has!].]

Well, i just took a look at the topographic map of northeastern Marshall county, Mississippi and every line in the topography clearly follows the rivers and creeks. What central location do you see?

http://www.trails.com/usgs-topo-chewall ... 95687.html

for a more detailed description-
coordinates for the central concave depression in the Mississippi embayment:
upper edge [northern rim]- 35* 00' 17.25"N x 89* 24' 27.52"W
lower edge [southern rim]- 34* 58' 3.25"N x 89* 24' 22.25"W
right side [eastern rim]- 34* 59' 11.27"N x 89* 22' 55.96"W
left side [western rim]- 34* 59' 15.18N x 89* 25' 45.75W

coordinates for the 'white sand creek' [the first in a series of shockwaves]-
eastern side [by Early Grove rd.]- 34* 58' 17.95"N x 89* 22' 37.80"W follow up to-
northeastern side- 35* 01' 05.53"N x 89* 21' 28.00"W follow around [behind the tree line] to-
northwestern side- 35* 01' 59.99"N x 89* 24' 225.09"W follow down to-
western side- 34* 58' 28.86"N x 89* 26' 16.50W

approx. center- 34* 59' 22.47"N x 89* 22' 37.80"W
central rebound peak- 34* 58' 56.61"N x 89* 24' 50.82W [notice arcs from this point]

approx. crater diameter- 4.25 km or 2.64 miles

please pinpoint each coordinate, determine each arc in the topography [...and study each and every little arc from these points...]
I hope this will be a better description...

do you see this anomaly? ...and can you describe what process/es would be able to produce this design?

[Kalopin]

...trying to understand what you are ,

Please, anything but that.


I am a tic.

I'm a o!

we may have some communication problem?

which group- the ones who know and are trying to contain this info.?
...or the ones unable to understand and being taken advantage of?

[E.P. Grondine]

Tony, just go away.

For everyone else here, what the impact research community needs is a a clearing house for news,
a site that can be seen by the public,
but a place where various idiots are not allowed. Period.

[Kalopin]

I often consider how different everything would be, had everyone gotten this right from the beginning...
[...learning all the nonsense...]
[...finding out the hard way...]
[...all the time and effort trying to fix so many major mistakes...]

do you think it easy to stand up in front of everyone and tell them they are wrong? [...easy to suggest a meteor in 1811?, or even/especially a Lunar impact?, just 13kya to this planet?] ...and how many are able to confront the status quo and those that will protect it, as if some religion?

Science, history, intelligence,... are beyond reproach. there is no other option but for the facts and the truths ...and any lack of investigation is an attack on these principles [and on reality...]
in the end this change will be inevitable, if there will ever be any accurate impact science, -because these hypotheses are based on actual evidence and not some 'drummed up' version of some imaginary events [- from bad dating, defective physics, fallacious reasoning, faulty logic,...]

we have all been subjected to so many untruths by the misinformed, misguided, mistaken and overly sure...as it is this 'we already know it all' mentality that has continued to block actual science. [please don't become the epitome of what this thread is about, but the solution to these many mistakes!]

all said and done, you will all thank my persistence, [as I happen to be correct- and in every way...]

that is why I now ask you to go over every detail and give a closer study to the satellite views, accounts and impactites,...


I never considered myself a good student [-ask too many questions!] I am a good learner. I never said I was a good teacher [-my sense of humour?] though I do have a message to give...
I have no wish to be remembered as a catastrophist. I would like to be seen as a futurist. The only way to get to that point is for everyone to understand these few vast geological changes in this planet's recent history...[and correct impact science] This is the only way to bring the tools needed to protect this planet from such future events. [as in the past Mars was used as a way station for protection during such major events...and there is little doubt that this will be the only option for any recurrence...]
where am I wrong?

["...this transmission is coming to you..."]

[...note of interest- http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/2016impact.html#a ...like predictions? ;-]

Do you see the crater and shockwave?
...waiting...

[E.P. Grondine]

Clinical.
The problem is that it is no fun.

[shawomet]

"People may imagine that they are adopting the pose of the "rigorous" scholar in this, but in doing so they are placing themselves squarely in the company of the geologists who denied Continental Drift in the face of overwealming evidence for decades."

That's a little misleading. Denied because nobody had a mechanism to explain the notion. Plate tectonics was the mechanism required to support the notion.

[uniface]

Traslation : they couldn't "explain" (visualise a mechanism for) it, so they denied that it happened, no matter how screamingly self-evident the evidence made it.

The story concocted around the data always trumps the picture data itself paints.

[shawomet]

Traslation : they couldn't "explain" (visualise a mechanism for) it, so they denied that it happened, no matter how screamingly self-evident the evidence made it.

The story concocted around the data always trumps the picture data itself paints.

And not every theory will prove to be true simply because it upsets the apple cart. Your approach seems to be if it upsets the apple cart, it should just be warmly embraced without any criticism at all. I'm happy I don't live in an academic world where things are just elevated to rock star status simply because they overturn long held beliefs. I don't have any problem with being rigorous where evidence is concerned. The history of science, the history of ideas, is full of examples of how established inertia resists new ideas. Tough. That's the way it is, and that is the way it is likely to remain. Very easy in hindsight to say "ooh, how stubborn, how close minded", but it beats the hey out of just accepting things uncritically. There is nothing wrong with being rigorous, being demanding that new ideas prove themselves in spades. Does it make it harder on new ideas? Of course, but the truth usually will out. As someone once put it, sciences advances with each new funeral(of the old guard). It's the way it is. To change it probably requires changing human nature. Good luck with that.

[uniface]

Evidence -- no matter how clear and convincing on its simple face -- can often be made to appear defective and/or inadequate by people out to quibble with the bean counting involved.

Case in point : the first O. J. Simpsom Trial.

The solution in such cases is to subject the "debunking" attempted to the same degree of scrutiny. The embarasment that results is surprisingly effective in changing the "scholarly consensus" quickly and permanently. As when "mainstream" archaeology stopped insisting that there was no "credible" evidence (i.e., evidence that met the standards they had concocted for it) for pre-Clovis Americans because intelligent, interested people in general were laughing at them.

"Human Nature," I would add, is fundamentally honest when it is not corrupted by investing in (or cooption by) agendas that demand that it be overridden by some supposedly overarching consideration (Iraq's fictitious "weapons of mass destruction" being a good example). That's why people get angry at obviously blown calls in sports.

Life is not really all that complicated ; it just only works the way it works. So much so that when some situation appears complicated there's generally at least one lie involved that fears identification/exposure.

[E.P. Grondine]

As someone once put it, sciences advances with each new funeral(of the old guard). It's the way it is. To change it probably requires changing human nature. Good luck with that.

The computer industry proves that this statement is not true.

In my view, it's mainly a question of money for research.

Of course, the politics of research funding are intense,
and single deaths can affect that.
But other factors can as well.

[E.P. Grondine]

Evidence -- no matter how clear and convincing on its simple face -- can often be made to appear defective and/or inadequate by people out to quibble with the bean counting involved.

That's true, but it's not bean counting.

Its usually when people have invested themselves in a competing paradigm to explain the data.

Look at the debates over the hypothesis of the extinction of the dinosaurs by impact.

Life is not really all that complicated ; it just only works the way it works. So much so that when some situation appears complicated there's generally at least one lie involved that fears identification/exposure.

What a sinister view of people.

Besides deliberate lying, you also have denial, and denial can be motivated by many causes.