[meteorite-list] Re: Chixculub material testing

From: Paul <lenticulina1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:27:49 2004
Message-ID: <20031115202505.86669.qmail_at_web21402.mail.yahoo.com>

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Dave Harris wrote:

>HI
>Mike F., can you explain why you are SO dogmatic
>that this Chixculub material cannot not possibly
>be what it is because "It is impossible that
>metalic material would survive millions of years,
>end of story" Isn't that rather a strong statement?
>I seem to recall that there are a number of sites
>where traces of impactors of about 110mya old
>have been found.

The identification of this material is rather suspicious
from a number of points. First, a person has to explain
how pieces of the Chixculub impactor, presuming
significant pieces of it even survived the impact came
to be deposited on a Yucatan beach. If a person looks
at the published literature, they will find that the
crater and impact related deposits are covered by 500
meters (1,600 ft), along its rim, to 900 meters
(2,900 ft), within the crater, of Cenozoic strata.
Given this depth of burial and the geologic history
of the Yucatan Peninsula, it is virtually impossible
to propose any rational mechanism to explain how a
piece of the Chixculub impactor, which by some small
miracle survived being vaporized at impact, could
have been transported into surficial sediments where
wave action could have exposed it.

(Go look at "Subsurface Startigraphy" at:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/Hanks/eff.html
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communication/Hanks/Fig5.html )

Second, the closest documented surface exposures of
ejecta from the Chixculub impact consists of outcrops
of the Albion Formation in northern Belize and adjacent
Quintana Roo, Mexico. They form a 65-km long NE-SW
trend transect that lies 320 to 365 km from the center
of the Chixculub structure. In this case, person needs
to explain how a piece of Chixculub impactor was
transported from these outcrops to the beaches of
Yucatan, where the alleged meteorite was found. Also,
the completely lack of any impactor fragments in these
outcrops precludes them as possible sources of the
alleged fragments of Chixculub impactor. It is possible
that outcrops of the ejecta blanket occur as close as
230 km from the center of the structure, but still their
distance and lack of any meteorite fragments within
them also precludes them as being the source of the
alleged Chixculub meteorite fragment. Again, a person
would be at a loss to explain how a piece of the
Chixculub meteorite ended up on a Yucatan beach.

Go look at "CHICXULUB EJECTA BLANKET: NEW INSIGHTS
INTO THE KT IMPACT EVENT" at:

http://www.museum.hu-berlin.de/min/mitarbeiter/mitarb/frank/paper/schoenian2002berlin.pdf

Finally, given the tropical climate of the Yucatan
Peninsula, the statement "It is impossible that metalic
material would survive millions of years, end of story"
is neither as dogmatic nor strong as it is alleged to
be. Presuming by some yet unknown process that a piece
of the Chixculub meteorite, after also surviving being
vaporized during the impact, was seemingly magically
transported upward through 500 to 900 m (1,600 to
2,900 ft) of Cenozic limestone and dolomite, it would
not have lasted very long in the Yucatan climate. It
certainly would not have lasted long being rolling
around on a salt water beach. There are cases that
pieces of meteorites have survived long periods of
times. However, these were under circumstnces vastly
different from what a person finds in the Yucatan
region. The conditions within the Yucatan Peninsula
are quite unfavorable for the preervation of metalic
materials.

Also, this same problem would occur in arguing that
a piece of Chixculub meteorite was eroded and
transported from a distance ejecta outcrop. The
climate of the Yucatan peninsula is such that
weathering would destroy any piece of meteoritic
material shortly after it was detached from the
outcrop. This and other considerations would
indicate the possibility of a piece of the Chixculub
meteorite appearing on a local beach to be quite
unlikely to the point of being impossible.

Mike F. is not at all being dogmatic. Rather, he is
expressing a skepticism that is well grounded in
what is known about the basic geology of the alleged
Chixculub meteorite. A person would have to be as
skeptical of this remarkable "find" as they would
have to be of someone offering to sell them multiple
oil leases within Hawaiian Islands. The validity of
both of these interpretations is so grossly
contradicted by what is known about the geology
of each region that being skeptical of them is
nothing more than exercising the common sense that
God gave us all.

Yours,

Paul
Baton Rouge, LA


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Received on Sat 15 Nov 2003 03:25:05 PM PST