Archaeologica.org

shawomet wrote:]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html

"The stones are almost certainly modern, created by local villagers to sell to gullible tourists. Two peasants from Callango, Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, have admitted to carving the stones they sold to Cabrera, basing their designs on illustrations from comic books, school books, and magazines (Polidoro 2002)."

But, OK, let's say they were coerced into confessing. Here is an article admitting your point, and providing some pro and con links, if the links aren't dead....


http://pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html

However, it is up to the believers in the Ica Stones to prove their authenticity and age before they can be actually presented as evidence. And again, if you look though all of them, it's only going to create more skepticism, and if their actual age cannot be pinpointed, then I don't know how they can be evidence.

Also, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. You are saying all the dates for the Iridium and the dates for the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic must be moved from ~65 mill to 12,900 years? Are you actually saying geologists must actually revise the entire geological time table to accommodate your theory? If Dino's lived passed the impact you are now saying did not actually terminate the Mesozoic Era, then why in the Eocene, the Oligocene, the Miocene, and the Pliocene do we not find dinosaurs? If dinosaurs developed during the Triassic Period over 200 million years ago, and apparently continued right down to 12,900 years ago, then why is there a gap not showing their existence in the Cenezoic when Cenazoic deposits are found worldwide, dated, contain many extinct mammal species, demonstrate things like the development of Equis sp's of horse from the Eocene to Pleistocene, yet nowhere in those deposits covering 10's of millions of years can be found the remains of dinosaurs. Your scenario had Dino's existing from the Triassic through Pleistocene, but a complete gap in their record in any Cenozoic deposit in the world! Where were they hiding before they were domesticated in your scenario?

So why are no dinosaur remains found whatsoever with Cenozoic mammal remains? No vertebrate Dino fossils at all. Again, where were they hiding? Forget the dates, where were the dinosaurs hiding?? Thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits around the world, showing absolutely no evidence said deposits were tossed about widely, but were deposited over time. Full of mammal fossils, devoid of dinosaur fossils. Eocene through Pliocene deposits alone showing stratification not indicative of having been deposited as a single jumble thousands of feet deep. Full of mammals, devoid of Dino's, and these 10's of thousands of feet of stratified deposits were deposited in the blink of an eye, containing every evolutionary stage of horse from dog size to modern, all living at the same time in your scenario. Where are all the Dino remains?

Also, I take it you now accept the human-dinosaur footprint association you so quicky seized upon as evidence is no longer any such thing? Or do you still maintain the paleontologists specializing in trace fossils are not as astute in their interpretation as you are?

Yes, the key is understanding how fast evolution works. The Dinosaurs would come back quickly if it were not for the excessive gravity [another factor being more radiation] caused by this impact. I have little doubt that this has occurred many times and it is obviously occurring at present, as not just humans but all plants and animals are slowly [in our time-frame reference] getting larger. As the outer tectonic plates and mantle continuously speed back up to match the inner core [and the inner core may be slowing?], there will be less electromagnetic and gravitational force to make organisms grow more compact. This has probably happened several times. So, evolution is not a one-way street, at least in my book!

"So pseudoscience debunked by more pseudoscience? There appears no real answer. The prints have been worn away and left to interpretation.
Regardless, this Lunar impact hypothesis does not need any more evidence than has already been presented. There is no other mechanism to produce the topography and it explains our loss of technology and history and every detail of the events 12,900 years ago. This is the inspiration behind the story of 'The Great Deluge'."



Of course ichnology is not pseudo science!! Why would you make such a claim? Do you specialize in trace fossils yourself? How perfectly silly to claim the Paluxy prints are unsolved. In addition, you qualify your observation by then saying "regardless". Regardless??? But you just used their supposed reality to buttress your argument! How can you then toss them aside with "regardless"? You are the one who wanted to use them as evidence!!! Regardless??? Apparently, when their true nature is explained, your reply amounts to "eh, so what". And this passes as the scientific methodology for you? really??? The actual footprint can show in any number of ways. Some lighter theropods walking in water will not show the heel print, but just the toes, etc. not every print is perfectly flat with the entire outline with toes, heel, etc. you reply with no evidence to support human footprint and you pretend to be enough of a specialist in ichnology, apparently, that you can just dismiss these studies out of hand?

Tell you what. I always found the fact that so many mammals became smaller despite so many of great size existing in the Cenazoic Era to be interesting. However, now having seen your reply to ichnology and your decision that the Paluxy tracks are still actually open to interpretation, demonstrates to me that it is actually you engaged in the practice of pseudoscience. Certainly at least where footprint "evidence" is concerned. Your stand on that issue alone proves to me that your are actually not interested in approaching this item objectively, which, since a I have little else to go on in judging your theory, leads me to suspect a close examination will demonstrate taking shortcuts and dismissing good science(ichnology and the Paluxy tracks) is likely to be found elsewhere in your thinking as well. Always fun looking at things like this, though, thanks for sharing your ideas. However, your easy embrace of the Pauloxy prints must cast doubts, for me, on anything else you claim.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

"For many years claims were made by "young-earth" creationists (YECs) that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after non-avian dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, the resulting depressions often superficially resemble large human footprints. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock)."

And here is Kuban's original paper on these dinosaur prints:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm



BTW, I can't find anyplace where I said "Kalopin is a creationist". And I'm not basing any comments based on that assumption. I have left links that have discussed creationism because they are simply a part of the conversation where the Paluxy prints are concerned, not because I think you are a creationist yourself.

shawomet wrote:"Of course ichnology is not pseudo science!! Why would you make such a claim? Do you specialize in trace fossils yourself? How perfectly silly to claim the Paluxy prints are unsolved. In addition, you qualify your observation by then saying "regardless". Regardless??? But you just used their supposed reality to buttress your argument! How can you then toss them aside with "regardless"? You are the one who wanted to use them as evidence!!! Regardless??? Apparently, when their true nature is explained, your reply amounts to "eh, so what". And this passes as the scientific methodology for you? really??? The actual footprint can show in any number of ways. Some lighter theropods walking in water will not show the heel print, but just the toes, etc. not every print is perfectly flat with the entire outline with toes, heel, etc. you reply with no evidence to support human footprint and you pretend to be enough of a specialist in ichnology, apparently, that you can just dismiss these studies out of hand?

Tell you what. I always found the fact that so many mammals became smaller despite so many of great size existing in the Cenazoic Era to be interesting. However, now having seen your reply to ichnology and your decision that the Paluxy tracks are still actually open to interpretation, demonstrates to me that it is actually you engaged in the practice of pseudoscience. Certainly at least where footprint "evidence" is concerned. Your stand on that issue alone proves to me that your are actually not interested in approaching this item objectively, which, since a I have little else to go on in judging your theory, leads me to suspect a close examination will demonstrate taking shortcuts and dismissing good science(ichnology and the Paluxy tracks) is likely to be found elsewhere in your thinking as well. Always fun looking at things like this, though, thanks for sharing your ideas. However, your easy embrace of the Pauloxy prints must cast doubts, for me, on anything else you claim.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

"For many years claims were made by "young-earth" creationists (YECs) that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after non-avian dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, the resulting depressions often superficially resemble large human footprints. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock)."

And here is Kuban's original paper on these dinosaur prints:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm



BTW, I can't find anyplace where I said "Kalopin is a creationist". And I'm not basing any comments based on that assumption. I have left links that have discussed creationism because they are simply a part of the conversation where the Paluxy prints are concerned, not because I think you are a creationist yourself.

No, I do not claim Ichnology is pseudo, I claim trying to judge worn out prints accurately is. And this is what is wrong- false judgement, lack of investigation, lack of proper interest, and a general disregard for facts in favor of pleasing peers. I claim most scientists and the biggest percentage of the scientific community have and are engaging in pseudoscience, in accepting bad theories that are not even viable [convection break-up of Pangaea, New Madrid quakes caused by tectonic activity alone, current theory of evolution...-didn't happen!]. This is what causes me to discredit many current beliefs.

I say 'regardless', not because I do not feel that this information has importance, but because it will not affect the outcome of this hypothesis. The Dinosaurs do not need to be in existence for this impact and break-up to have occurred. Ichnology needs to stick to what it can positively determine and not come to conclusions on shakey evidence. The Paluxy prints are too vague and left to interpretation. Wonder if we could get scientists to further investigate some real evidence, such as what I propose, instead of trying their best to argue against creation?

P.S. Technically, humans and at least one species of Dinosaur still co-exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara [Would this species grow massive under different circumstances? ]
Caudal autotomy?!

P.S.S. It may be of interest to note that the Tuatara are endemic to New Zealand alone, and that this would be about the furthest from this impact and still near enough to the equator for these animals to have survived...

shawomet wrote:" Your stand on that issue alone proves to me that your are actually not interested in approaching this item objectively, which, since a I have little else to go on in judging your theory, leads me to suspect a close examination will demonstrate taking shortcuts and dismissing good science(ichnology and the Paluxy tracks) is likely to be found elsewhere in your thinking as well. Always fun looking at things like this, though, thanks for sharing your ideas. However, your easy embrace of the Pauloxy prints must cast doubts, for me, on anything else you claim.

Eww, this statement! I do not wish to pick on anyone. Please give CLOSE examination to ALL my hypotheses and PLEASE point out my mistakes. I cordially invite everyone to give further study and learn the truth!
I would think that even the greatest of minds have made mistakes? Not that I have made any! How much do you want to bet that humans and Dinosaurs STILL co-exist, oh yea, don't forget our little friend the Tuatara!
So, you see, it is not just interpretation, it is a fact...[objectively ]

OMG! Are y'all gonna regurgitate this tripe ad nauseum???

circumspice wrote:OMG! Are y'all gonna regurgitate this tripe ad nauseum???

Not if your gonna look at me with such an anger filled face, I'm not

Kalopin wrote:

shawomet wrote:" Your stand on that issue alone proves to me that your are actually not interested in approaching this item objectively, which, since a I have little else to go on in judging your theory, leads me to suspect a close examination will demonstrate taking shortcuts and dismissing good science(ichnology and the Paluxy tracks) is likely to be found elsewhere in your thinking as well. Always fun looking at things like this, though, thanks for sharing your ideas. However, your easy embrace of the Pauloxy prints must cast doubts, for me, on anything else you claim.

Eww, this statement! I do not wish to pick on anyone. Please give CLOSE examination to ALL my hypotheses and PLEASE point out my mistakes. I cordially invite everyone to give further study and learn the truth!
I would think that even the greatest of minds have made mistakes? Not that I have made any! How much do you want to bet that humans and Dinosaurs STILL co-exist, oh yea, don't forget our little friend the Tuatara!
So, you see, it is not just interpretation, it is a fact...[objectively ]

Thanks, but I'm not all that interested in pointing out your mistakes. Thank you for the invitation as well. If I were you, I would publish your theory and evidence in one place. Even if it has to be self-published. I think you understand your chances the peer-review route would be tough. But, publish it and let some kind of consensus opinion, suggestions, whatever emerge and play it out there. Expecting to simply meet ready and willing acceptance on any Internet forum is unrealistic.

Michelle -

I do believe its long past time.

E.P. Grondine wrote:Michelle -

I do believe its long past time.

'daylight savings'?, 'leap year'?, time travel?, time manipulation?, time warp?, or-time to tell the truth? Yes, I agrree, long past time to make a change!

If you may have time; There is so much more to correct this lost and distorted history. As you have seen, I have put forth strong evidence for a YDB Lunar impact and have given proof to an 1811 Mississippi embayment impact, but I have several more under works. [Maybe someone should let someone know this?!]

After the YDB impact, many glaciers formed and massive lakes and inland seas, one of which was Lake Agissiz in central to southwest Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agissiz About 8,200 years ago a [rather small?] comet struck the Hudson Bay creating the Nastapoka Arc and instantly draining Lake Agissiz giving further rise to sea levels, creating a major gravity anomoly [which gives strong indication] and a rapid uplift from glacial rebound. This is, beyond doubt the most likely scenario: http://tsunamisociety.org/233murty.pdf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Bay and it appears the Chesapeake Bay impact may have occurred even earlier than 35 million years, as a body of water locked beneath it dated to over 100 million years, but, then again, dealing with the skewed process of dating!: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... r-science/ So, a work in progress.

Something else concerning 1811 A Comet and A Quake, I may have mentioned how feared the Chickasaw were by explorers, after DeSoto tried to take some Chickasaw women and was almost killed, losing many men and horses, and we may have discussed there being very few settlers in the area, but I believe I may have forgotten to mention the fact that the Chickasaw had recently forced [yes, forced] the cavalry to remove more than 5,000 squatters from their land. This was accomplished successfully from 1809-1811: http://www.tolatsga.org/chick.html [a little more than 3/4 down the page]. As I stated, there were very few/if any settlers at or near this incident, although it would not matter, as all life was instantly vaporized...

I believe this could easily happen and HAS happened recently, as it is my belief that several of the recent events causing earthquakes and tsunamis were actually from an oceanic meteor impact, with 'none the wiser'!

I believe this could easily happen and HAS happened recently, as it is my belief that several of the recent events causing earthquakes and tsunamis were actually from an oceanic meteor impact, with 'none the wiser'!

I hang out on some atheist forums and there are plenty of religious types with more "beliefs" than you can shake a stick at. None of them ever have any evidence but they believe a great deal.

Minimalist wrote:

I believe this could easily happen and HAS happened recently, as it is my belief that several of the recent events causing earthquakes and tsunamis were actually from an oceanic meteor impact, with 'none the wiser'!

I hang out on some atheist forums and there are plenty of religious types with more "beliefs" than you can shake a stick at. None of them ever have any evidence but they believe a great deal.

This is science, not religion.
Scientific beliefs are based on factual studies- by examining the percentage of possibility.
As the 2006 tsunami in the Indian Ocean may have occurred near the Burma and Indian plate boundaries, there was no land-felt earthquake, just the tsunami. Is that not suspicous? The tsunami occurring in Japan in 2011 was epicentered about one hundred-fifty miles from the Pacific and North American Plate boundaries. Is that not suspicous?

There are so many plate boundaries that the likely-hood of a surface impact being close to one is very high. Mostly, seismologists seem to be jumping ahead of the astrophysicists, [not knowing how to work together,] at determining the cause, obviously toward plate tectonics as the primary source and "rarely" meteoric. You may say it is just my belief, but an accurate study would give favor to an impact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami .

Tsunamis from asteroid impacts: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/ ... namiimpact Here you will find the percentages much higher. It is much more likely for a large wave to have been generated at or near the surface. A deep lying fault would need an extreme rupture, that would cause a devastating [land-felt] earthquake to any near population and would register high on the charts.
Maybe not the word 'belief' maybe 'conclusion'?!

P.S. Although, I would say that in many ways, science 'is' religion, religion 'is' science, both in search of the truth and would not exist without each other. Scientifically, the 'Spirit World' is another dimension and is a strong theory. Just need to sort the inconsistencies within both! believe

His P S is telling.
We can go through history to find many things that were “religious” or “superstitious” that were later given scientific backing.
(This assumes a “Western History” point of view.)
I would start with the spherical Earth.
And, maybe a new thread?
(And maybe not...There isn't much archaeology involved here.)

kbs2244 wrote:His P S is telling.
We can go through history to find many things that were “religious” or “superstitious” that were later given scientific backing.
(This assumes a “Western History” point of view.)
I would start with the spherical Earth.
And, maybe a new thread?
(And maybe not...There isn't much archaeology involved here.)

You make my point- many times religous ideas are found to be scientific and science many times backs religious thinking...

This is what archaeology depends on and must decipher- a correct history, accurately interpretted geology, and the mechanisms provided to give reason! [beside the fact that there IS quite a bit of archaeology involved in this discussion!]

This is the reason for [or that we need] religion and science- a lost and distorted history, misperceived analysis of geological structures, and such little understanding of the physical world. What all have been, and are being taught is the result of an innocent and gullible mind, unable to determine evidence individually, students are put through this same conditioning, passing on the ignorance [charade parade]
The result of catastrophe winning over technology.

Why do so many have such trouble understanding that extraterrestrial forces have controlled much of Earth's history?

Here's you a P.S. After, [or whenever] you understand these hypotheses to be accurate, and knowing that they have been and are being ignored for so long, will you understand how certain individuals within the scientific community have warped and distorted reality as badly as any religion ever could? There is no "Us and Them",["The science of the madman was getting out of control, for every creature comfort, there is a heavy toll..."], ["...what future did we earn? It's our mistakes..."]



P.S.S. Just found this gentleman's work @ aapg,org: http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/12dec/gom_impact.pdf
"Since there has been more evidence of large impact structures previously unrecognized. There is more acceptance that impacts had a greater influence on Earth's later history than previously thought." and has a similar hypothesis. Maybe, at least give students this option? Is there more acceptance?