[meteorite-list] Thailand micro-tektites and carbonized wood published in paper but found not factual

From: drtanuki <drtanuki_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Sep 23 20:39:09 2005
Message-ID: <20050924003905.23951.qmail_at_web53215.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear List,
  This is slightly related to your carbonized wood.
Several years ago did a websearch for micro-tektites
in Thailand. I found a paper claiming that the
researcher had found them along with carbonized wood
at a site near Khorat, Thailand. I contacted the
researcher because I am researching tektites in
Thailand and wanted more information about his find.
He explained to me that what he had published later
turned out to be incorrect and that he had not
actually found micro-tektites. About 2 years ago I
visited the site myself to investigate. I wanted to
check for myself. I also found no micro-tektites in
the level that he had reported and his carbonized wood
was not due to combustion, but due to anerobic decay
of the wood. If anyone wants photos of the site I can
send them off list.
Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo

--- MarkF <mafer_at_imagineopals.com> wrote:

> Hi Doug
> I did set the bar high, because some of the
> researchers actually believe the
> event was so powerful, the ozone layer itself would
> have been blasted away
> 1000 times over (their own words when challenged on
> the subject. Without
> ozone at all, there would be very little life period
> being totally
> unprotected from radiation which got past the
> magnetic field around earth.
> Having said that, I did say that a study of forams
> associated with a marine
> reptile would give very good evidence and possibly
> supply leads that people
> are (non-paleontologists) scrambling to find to back
> up their own work in
> physics and such about the K-T event.
> But, to date, they have not and they assume, that
> their calculations prove
> all and are supported by forams, when in fact, their
> calculations would have
> wiped the earth clean of forams and most other life
> that didn't require
> sunlight to live.
> Thats the arguement in a nutshell.
>
> Good talk were having here, should we take it off
> list though?
>
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
> To: <mafer_at_imagineopals.com>
> Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fossils Offer Support
> for
> Meteor'sRoleinDinosaurExtinc...
>
>
> > Hola Mark, List,
> >
> > Nice link of "carbonized petrified wood" from
> Ecuador, thank
> > you...however,
> > it appears to me that the "carbonized" adjective
> in that particular URL
> > refers
> > to trees that were dried under a bed of fine warm
> volcanic ash, according
> > to
> > those authors, where some of the mineralization
> occuring in the
> > petrification process forming stable carbon
> minerials derived from the
> > original organic
> > carbon in the organic matter. It doesn't sound
> like they are claiming
> > that
> > the fine detail also shows evidence that the
> fossils were burned, in your
> > use
> > of "charred" and "carbonized". On the contrary
> the authors seem to be
> > agreeing with the point I made: That the
> temperature couldn't have been
> > too hot -
> > or the detail would have been lost - they quote
> 150 C as the maximum.
> > Wood
> > doesn't burn at that temperature.
> >
> > To try to bridge our gap, I'll agree that you
> could probably come up with
> > several examples of petrified wood where arguments
> have been made alleging
> > charring of the "burnt" variety. There are a
> couple of orders of
> > magnitude more
> > of biomass of plant material than animal, though.
> The examples you will
> > probably dig up are from lava flows where several
> meters of inorganic
> > volcanic
> > ash buries anerobically in near laboratory
> produced conditions, a perfect
> > insulating, thick disinfected layer of ash from
> which leaching of
> > volcanic
> > minerials into the integral organic structures can
> grow minerals in the
> > orientations
> > we can recognize as a fossil, long after the
> original mold has vanished.
> >
> > If we can agree that these events are specialized
> cases, and that the
> > supposed KT impact was of quite a different
> variety scrambling all kinds
> > of
> > unsterilized, non-uniform, matter, much like a
> variable garbage heap, we
> > now have a
> > different situation where I don't believe anyone
> has actually show that
> > burnt
> > fossils - if that sort of original burnt product
> even existed - can
> > actually
> > form under these circumstances.
> >
> > My motivation to respond was that you are shooting
> down marine organisms
> > as
> > indicators of global and regional climate change
> by refusing to consider
> > its
> > implications on the fauna of the region. In fact,
> it is the best we
> > have.
> > I'll gladly give to you that it isn't "proof", and
> that certain
> > researchers in
> > their enthusiasm think they can explain the entire
> world with a hammer,
> > or
> > whatever tool they have become proficient and
> familiar using. But
> > chronostratigraphy is a very serious and developed
> science which provides
> > indicators
> > that a comprehensive extinction theory must be
> consistent explaining as
> > one of
> > the first things it does - if great changes are
> noticed. You might
> > attribute
> > it to abrupt changes in nutrient availability -
> well, perhaps, but the
> > Forams
> > are rather widespread across the world and when
> correlations indicating
> > water temperature are very consistent with many
> diverse theories, I must
> > admit I
> > get amazed at the power of this sort climatic
> analysis.
> >
> > On the other hand, you set the bar quite high,
> perhaps in joking, it is
> > not
> > clear to me...You would demand a paleontologist
> show you burnt dinosaur
> > bones
> > to back up his babblings derived from Forams
> before you would take him
> > seriously. I disagree. Perhaps I am a bit
> ignorant on this, but I am
> > having
> > great difficulty imagining how dino bones would
> get nicely burnt and then
> > petrified with the upheaval of tsunamis, rocks and
> bb's, from the sky,
> > storms,
> > winds, maybe fires, etc... It just sounds like a
> huge mess to me. I
> > picked a
> > tree as it would be the easiest in my opinion to
> conserve charring marks
> > if
> > anything could. I try to imagine how the bland
> tissue of a dinosaur
> > could be
> > surgically removed and then bone charred, and that
> conserved in this
> > scenario by
> > fossilization (especially considering the possible
> invasion of corrosive
> > salt water).
> >
> > When we barbeque an animal, do we get burnt bones
> out of it? With all
> > that
> > mean around it?
> >
> > Now given the 65,000,000 years that have elapsed,
> the relative uncommoness
> > of macro-fossilization when not ocurring under
> perfect conditions, when
> > sediments move, etc., the relative infrequent
> finds of dino bones, I think
> > you are
> > asking for a standard of proof that is too tall an
> order, though it would
> > be
> > great if it could turn up. That may be what is
> being hunted in the
> > article
> > on Cuba - which perhaps is the right distance from
> the alleged KT crater,
> > to
> > get a partial burning...not to close, not too
> far...
> >
> > Where I am going with all this is, while I don't
> disagree with your
> > arguments against the chronostratigraphists, any
> other proof so far from
> > the boundary
> > event(s) is equally or more likely more
> inconclusive than the ideas
> > gleaned
> > from analysis of the Foramifera and the
> implications of global climate
> > change
> > that they indicate.
> >
> > 65,000,000 years ago, with modern science
> everything seems a our
> > fingertips.
> > That feeling quickly vanishes when one goes out
> into the field, the
> > rubber
> > (shoes) meet the road (outcrops)and has to deal
> with a few ugly
> > anachronistic
> > fragments of petrified rocks. Even the
> petrification process is not too
> > well understood for a given fossil...
> >
> > That's why I give the paleontologists studying
> microfossil stratigraphy
> > their respect for the tools they offer and
> wonderful information they
> > have
> > gleaned for us all. But that isn't carte blanche,
> and I agree that we
> > need to look
> > at all surviving angles. For example, before
> finding that charred dino
> > bone, can you at least show me a 65,000,000
> charred earth rock or
> > meteorite from
> > the event? Not shocked quartz. Why would that
> be so hard to do if wood
> > is
> > no problem?
> >
> > Saludos, Doug
> >
> > Mark Fe wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Doug and List
> >
> >>Actually, there are chared and carbonized stumps
> within flows. Simple
> > google
> >>search turn this up:
>
>>http://www.internacional.edu.ec/publicaciones/arco_iris/001/english/magazine0
> > 01b.htm
> >>A piece of burned bone which had been carbonized
> would leave a distinct
> >>trace fossil as opposed to a mineralized fossil.
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>



                
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri 23 Sep 2005 08:39:05 PM PDT