[meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew...lies, etc

From: Jason Utas <*meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:31:56 -0800 Message-ID: <93aaac890712202131k375823b1p7e2bed8b720fc796_at_mail.gmail.com> · meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
You don't even try to defend what you said but instead try to turn it
on me for having said that you lied, when you clearly did.
At least everyone else can see what a fool you're making of yourself...
> "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.
You have a layer of cosmic dust and a decline in animal populations.
I don't doubt in any way that the answer is of cosmic origin, but what
I'm saying is that you can't say with *any* degree of certainty what
sort of cosmic event caused the layer of dust and supposed climate
change because you have no solid evidence (such as the Yucatan crater)
to prove your point.  You maintain that, and I quote,
"4) As far as locating the 31,000 BCE crater goes, its
possible that the situation might be similar to the
K-T crater - that one took 10 years to find.  Same
goes for impact point(s) for the 10,900 BCE event. If
you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll
see that  more have been found in the areas where
geologists live."
- Which means that you expect a large, thirty-thousand year old crater
to exist somewhere on the continent.  Until you find definitive
evidence such as this, all of your theories remain nothing more than
unsubstantiated hypothesis.
What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact process, and you
seem to want to attribute that to an airburst.  In science, we just
don't do that.
> "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.
Climate change could change any ocean current given only a few hundred
years, especially if large amounts of cold fresh-water are entering
the ocean in the form of glacial melt.  This, in turn, could drive
greater climate changes, as weather patters are disrupted, etc.
Find me a crater and I'll believe you.  Until then, bluster away.
> >"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.
At every point I acknowledge that a cosmic event was undoubtedly at
least partly to blame for these climate changes - if not directly,
than at least in initiating the steps necessary for a sort of domino
effect in which ocean currents change, etc - see above.
The only person in denial here is you, who refuses to accept the fact
that he can't possibly know with any certainty what sort of cosmic
cataclysms caused either dust layer.  I speak generally about both
because there is no proven source for either one and thus one need not
distinguish between the two, at this point each is as obscured by time
and lack of true study as the other.
Notice how no one else is agreeing with you.  There's a reason.
> >That's not denial.
>
> ahem.
Well, yours is, I'll grant you that.
> >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.
You very apparently know less than I do.
I can calculate KE, and am taking calculus, as well as Physics B.  I
also have read most books available on impact mechanics, though none
of them refer in any way to large bodies (over ~.5km in diameter)
spontaneously vaporizing in Earth's atmosphere.  100m, as with
Tunguska, yes - beyond that, it is apparently all conjecture because
we don't know the general structures of various types of comets, never
mind their compositions.
Or have you taken a college astrophysics/planetary science course?
I performed some calculations with regards to KE, etc - you have done
none whatsoever in this thread.  Eat your own words, if you can manage
to swallow them; having exhibited some knowledge of numeric
proficiency, I have a more legitimate claim in asking you to shut your
mouth than you have in asking the same of me.
:D
> > >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 seeing as comets are undifferentiated bodies, there would be no
reason whatsoever for them to have iron cores had they not "formed
around" them.
^...I appear to know more about meteoritics than you do.
> >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.
No, it addressed the fact that you still have no crater or proof of
airburst.  To which you repeatedly state that I am in denial instead
of giving me, or anyone else, proof of any sort of such an event, the
likes of which could have been caused by an impact, or who knows what
else, cosmically speaking, though we have no proof of it by means of a
crater - or anything remotely on the same level in terms of
substantiated evidence.
I accept the obvious fact that we're talking about a cosmic event of
sorts, and that it played a role in the extinction, or at least,
reduction in size, of numerous animal populations, including people,
in as direct a manner as the extinction of the dinosaurs is related to
the Yucatan crater (and it doesn't get much more direct than that).
That is obvious, given the evidence that we have.
Anything further said is nothing more than conjecture unless/until
more evidence is found.  You don't seem to understand that I'm not
saying that an airburst or impact did undoubtedly not occur.  What I'm
saying is that either one may well have occurred (though physically
speaking, an adequate airburst that could create the effects of which
you speak seems impossible), but as you have no solid proof either
way, what you say simply has no credibility.  You've put forth some
ridiculous claims, such as the supposition that the droplets of the
meteor crater impactor were still liquid upon coming back into contact
with the ground (I would expect this only from someone who hadn't done
any research on the subject), that a layer of cosmic dust means
undoubtedly that a conventional airburst or impact has occurred, and,
well, you said some things that no one addressed because they simply
made no sense (I'm talking about your first few emails that spoke of
pieces of material (you didn't specify whether of meteoric or impact
origin 're-entering the atmosphere,' as well as failing to address the
fact that you were clearly lying above, and clumsily tried to cover it
up by claiming that simply because comets didn't 'form' with iron
cores doesn't mean that they don't have them now.
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're simply
trying to piss me off with your ridiculous and unfounded claims.
Even Sterling acknowledges not that there *was* an icy impact, but
rather that there *could have* been one, but that, without decades of
study, we really can't be sure (and that, even given decades, we still
might not find definitive evidence) of what exactly caused the
formation of those dust layers/extinctions.
That's why no one else is agreeing with you, and, I assume, why angry
customers are demanding money back for that book which you sold them.
You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
-Douglas Adams
Jason
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
> >
>
>
>      ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>