[meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - let leg simmer on fire in skin

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:44 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac890712211839q6e66793an1049266d38674b55_at_mail.gmail.com>

E.P., All,

> >To be perfectly frank, I've had enough of you, but I
> >do like getting the last word in, so here you go.
>
> Why do I have this feeling that this will not be the
> last word we hear from Jason?

Probably because we've not seen the last of you either; you're doing
the same thing ;)

> >Notice how no one else is agreeing with you.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that Sterling and a few others have
> already responded to Jason's multiple misconceptions
> about impact processes, but Jason seems to have
> fixated on me. Now if he only had tits...

Sterling and I have come to a sort of agreement, in case you've missed
it, but I really included the gist of it in my last email - in any
case, it should be below, if you included my entire post in your
response.
Damn straight - I'm so hot even middle-aged guys wish I had tits.
Hmmm, this is getting awkward....

> >At least everyone else can see what a fool you're
> >making of yourself...
>
> Apparently Jason has not bothered to consider the
> alternative hypothesis that it might be the other way
> around.

Well I've had a few messages of support from list members as well as
an email from a world-renowned expert on meteorites, stating that I
was being "too generous" with my critiques, so I think you're mistaken
here - as much as elsewhere.
Go read Darren's post if you don't believe me.

> >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.
>
> Apparently Jason ignored the Native American's
> memories of the Holocene Start Impacts which I posted
> here a while back.

Ahhh, right. You go believe that. Darren's post sums up just about
everyone else's opinion of that as well.
Legends are not science. They tend to have somewhat historical roots,
but we're talking about science here, not a picture book about native
american storytelling.

> And in this post, Jason once again demonstrates his
> complete inability to differentiate between the
> holocene start impacts and the mammoth pepperer.
>
> >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.
>
> In science, we don't mistate evidence in order to
> invalidate a hypothesis; we also don't mistate
> hyposthesis in order to invalidate them.

You're not saying anything here. The point is that you have no
evidence. No evidence =/= airburst. It doesn't matter what you say
if there's nothing behind it.
You keep saying that you have evidence for an airburst; what is your
definitive evidence? By all means, tell us all right now...

> Why is Jason reading what he wants to believe, instead
> of what is actually written? Denial.

Well, besides that fact that I've come to understand that what you
write tends to be quite akin in quality (scientifically speaking) to
the children's book rather aptly named 'Cloudy With a Chance of
Meatballs,' I think you're going to find it hard to get me to believe
much of what you say - especially when the sole things that my beliefs
are grounded in are logic, the laws of science, and mathematics.

> > Which means that you expect a large, thirty-thousand
> > year old crater to exist somewhere on the continent.
>
> Sterling gave Jason a few minutes of his time and went
> through ice impact with him, but that seems to have
> gone in one of Jason's ears and out the other, with
> nothing there to stop it.

I have acknowledged multiple times that I see the ice impact as a (an
albeit unlikely) possible explanation for the geologic evidence that
has been found.
You accuse me of misinterpreting what you wrote; why don't you try
reading the emails that I've sent you to begin with? I repeatedly
state that the ice impact is a possibility - you're the one who
expected to find a crater given the evidence already discovered.

You failed to include above the quote that clearly stated that you
believed that a crater exists to be found. Maybe you've changed your
point of view; I don't know, but you clearly stated that you believed
that a crater exists to be found.

That said, as no definitive evidence for an ice impact has been found,
it is impossible to state that this is without a doubt what caused the
layer of dust/extinctions. There may or may not be any definitive
evidence to find, but we're talking about science here, not religion.
Just because we don't have a solid explanation yet doesn't mean that a
particular one of the countless possibilities that could explain it
(however likely it is to have generated the effects seen) is certainly
the right one.

> >I can calculate KE, and am taking calculus, as well
> as >Physics B.
>
> Some teachers out there have my deepest condolences.

Haha, right - interesting how you cut out the rest of what I said and
moved on.
You might try gaining some credibility by saying something about your
own self, if there's anything there that might raise anyone's already
subterranean opinion of your personage.

Now that we've established that I know more about the dynamics of an
impact and meteoritics in general, I really don't see how you can
honestly persist in your ramblings.

> >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.
>
> Denial manifest. More to come later, I'm sure, along
> with some observations on paradigm shift.

"Denial manifest." I like that - sounds like something made up on the spot.

And I love how you exorcised the part in which you clearly stated that
comets have iron cores, which acted as nuclei to the forming comets or
which subsequently formed due to differentiation.

You're an interesting fellow - every time you're proven wrong you just
move on to the next thing, attacking what I say, and cutting loose the
parts that don't help you out.
I, at least, include everything in my rebuttals. It's the only way to
learn anything, you know. Otherwise you just wind up with nothing
more than straw arguments. . . . . . . . .

Oh - and I will admit; I'll perpetuate this damn thread as long as you
agree to do the same by posting a reply. The only trouble with your
accusing me of trying to get the last word in is that it takes two to
dance the dance - if one can find a suitable partner ;)
Jason

> good hunting, all
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
> END
>
> > "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.
>
> You did lie. Here's your quote for the rest of the
> people who may or may not be following along:
>
> 1) E.P. Stated that:
>
> "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."
>
> 2) I stated that:
>
> We don't know much about cometary composition, but
> there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they
> formed around iron cores,
>
> 3) In response, E.P. stated that:
>
> "I never said that."
>
> --
>
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Fri 21 Dec 2007 09:39:44 PM PST