[meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - Over Done

From: Greg Hupe <gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:07:37 -0500
Message-ID: <089801c84450$3012f3c0$0200a8c0_at_Gregor>

Anyone else out there also had enough "Mammoth Stew"? If any more of this is
served, I think I will throw up! Give it a rest and take it off List you
guys, otherwise your tummies will be too full and sore to eat a nice
Christmas dinner. If you are good for the next 3 days, Santa might bring you
new keyboards since your others must certainly be worn out by now (I know
mine is, or at least the 'Delete' key).

"Happy" Holidays!
Greg

====================
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
gmhupe at htn.net
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
To: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - let leg simmer on fire in skin


> 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
>>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 11:07:37 PM PST