[meteorite-list] Monday morning, and back into the muck

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <929358.17841.qm_at_web36915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi all -

Christ, do I get awarded a doctorate after all of this
is done? Or is their a large cash prize involved if I
"win" this?

I wrote:

"Back now to the Fairbank muck deposit:
I WAS WRONG. I MADE A MISTAKE. AN ERROR.

Clearly, the deposits which Hibbens observed
at Fairbanks came from the sudden ice melt
following this impact event:"

And Paul observed:
"This is not the impact generated mega-tsunami, which
here-to fore you have been arguing happened and which
is what I thought the discussion was all about. I find
it revealing that once your tsunami hypothesis for the
origin of specific beds described by Hibben (1943) has
been demolished, you invents a new and contradictory
explanation."

Well, as it is very difficult to try to figure out
exactly what occurred when some 12,000 years ago, I
reserve my right to change my opinion again as new
data comes in. The First People's holocene start
accounts that I read had no large fire, but then I've
been told by other researchers that there are other
accounts which do.

That said, the traditions that I did read all included
the description of a COMET. And as it was very
difficult to try to understand exactly what the
ancestors were trying to tell us, I kept my commentary
very distinct from the passing on of their traditions.

"If this is what Mr. Grondine is proposing, then it is

dishonest for Mr. Grondine to claim that Hibben (1943)
supports his point of view"

What Hibben proposed was that a supervolcanic
explosion had killed the mega-fuana. And I set out
Hibben's hypothesis in my book "Man and Impact in the
Americas", and stated why I disagreed with it. There
is nothing "dishonest" about that. That's unlike some
people, who will intentionally misquote my own words
back to me, and quite fearlessly add insults to their
comments.

"as Hibben (1943) clearly stated:

""The deposits known as muck may be definitely
described, in the opinion of the writer, as loess
material. All characteristics seem to indicate a
wind-borne origin from comparatively local
sources, as the material resembles local bedrock.
The outwash plains of the local glaciations are
likely points of origin for this material.""

"Hibben (1943) clearly states above that he interprets
the bulk of the Alaskan "muck" being likely composed
of wind-blown silt."

"It is just specific layers, which Hibben (1943)
described as being containing the jumbled remains of
plants and animals that he argued as being the result
of a catastrophe."

"Even your new hypothesis cannot explain the physical
characteristics of the Alaskan muck. Cataclysmic
floods of any type simply do not deposit thick
sequences of silty sediments."

Well, floods may not deposit "thick sequences of silty
sediments", but impact mega-tsunami do, as can be seen
at La Venta, where they have 20 feet of "marine
sediment".

Bottom line, Paul, I've never been to Alaska, and I
thought that the reason that the hydraulic mining
operation was going on was to recover gold from
gravels that had been washed down.

EP



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
Received on Mon 27 Aug 2007 12:36:55 PM PDT