[meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew - get your fire going real good

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <349318.72195.qm_at_web36906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Jason, list -

"If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the
"laws of physics, scientific method, not to mention
" basic logic, we might get somewhere.

Thanks for the compliment, Jason. I don't think "we"
are going to be able to get anywhere.

"Show me proof. Show me blackened bones.
"Oh, that's right - there isn't any.
""As I said before, I won't say that such events
"haven't happened,because in all likelihood, they have
"- but we *have no proof.*
"This is not denial. This is fact.

What "we" pretty well know is that Jason's assertion
is not a fact, and that he is exhibiting denial.

"Rationalize them away? I'm not trying to say
anything "other than the fact that you're attributing
a mass "hominid death to an airburst/impact scenario
(you seem "to have changed your mind in this regard),

For the 10,900 BCE event Sterling brought up airburst,
but only as an example of how little evidence can
remain from a pretty big impact. I've pretty well
always spoken about multiple cometary impactors, and a
change in the north Pacific Current.

>"I'm saying we don't know how they died.

But we do, as absolute physical evidence has been
demonstrated. Jason's reactions here are similar to
those some have had to the dinosuars' extinction,
where even though you have a big hole in the Earth,
its always something else that killed them. It's
probably going to take decades, as Sterling pointed
out, and will only be accepted by some long after "we"
are dead.

>That's not denial.

ahem.

>I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst,

Then why doesn't Jason shut the hell up, and leave the
discussion to those who at least have an approximate
knowledge of the dynamics of airburst? The answer,
again, is denial.

> >We don't know much about cometary composition, but
> > there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they
> > formed around iron cores,
>
> I never said that.

>And I quote:

>"It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals
in
a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the
iridium is, after all."

>So...you did say that....

The big differences between "the cores of the
cometissimals in a comet have a nice metal content"
(my words) and "they formed around iron cores"
(Jason's words) are pretty clear to native speakers of
English.

>Well we know for a fact that there were more large
>bodies in the early solar system billions of years
ago >than there are today simply from mathematical
models, >though we may not be able to prove such
numbers
>precisely with vast numbers of dated craters.
>The models are still sound; it would take a good few
>pages of my typing to explain them fully, and, to be
>frank, I see no point in wasting the time.

Sterling did that in one paragraph, off the top of his
head, wasting no time. But in his lengthy reply, Jason
still avoids the topic of cometary impact.

>Well, evidently I haven't been able to truly
>"rationalize" these deaths (that so clearly plague my
>subconscious) and they are thus driving me to
>"incoherence..."

A meeting of minds turned out to be possible after
all, as here is a point on which Jason and I agree!

Lord Keynes:
"When the facts change I change my mind.
What do you do, sir?"

good hunting all,
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
>


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Received on Thu 20 Dec 2007 10:51:02 PM PST