[meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck, Tsunami, and Hibben (too long)

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20070711040937.33067.qmail_at_web36914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Paul -

Please excuse the tardiness of my reply. I have
pressing matters to attend to.

You raise many points in your effort to obscure one
point, the point Hibben recovered. That point may be
placed between say about 45,000 BCE and 8,249 BCE.

As background for those of meteoritical bent, Frank
Hibben was one of the first archaeologists to excavate
Folsom and Clovis remains, and in 1933 and 1941 he
traveled to Alaska trying to find remains of early man
along the "Siberian Land Bridge". Hibben's account of
the work of the pioneering archaeologists makes for a
fine read, and his description of what he found in
Alaska, and where he found it, makes for particularly
fascinating reading....

"Frozen in the muck walls, or beaten out beneath the
insistent pounding of the streams of water {from the
hydraulic jets], were logs and twisted trees and
branches and stumps. Here and there were layers of
moss and peat; but nowhere in the muck could we find a
layer of charcoal, or a fire pit, or any of those
other indications that we had come to associate with
the campsites of the ancient hunters.

"Mammals there were in abundance, dumped in all
attitudes of death. Most of them were pulled apart by
some unexplained prehistoric catastrophic disturbance.
Legs and torsos and heads and fragments were found
together in piles or scattered separately. But nowhere
could we find any definite evidence that humans had
ever walked among these trumpeting herds or had ever
seen their final end.

"On one particular rainy, dark afternoon, we were
assisting one of the paleontologists in excavating the
remains of an Alaskan lion-a great, striped beast with
long fangs, slightly reminiscent of a Bengal tiger. He
looked like a nasty customer in death, even though he
was represented only by scattered bones in the black
muck. As we sought for the lower jaw of the lion in a
newly revealed surface of muck, we found our evidence
of man-a flint point still frozen solid in the muck
bank.

"Its position was about ninety feet below the original
surface. We photographed it in place, then removed it
from the frozen ground, eagerly held it up, and turned
it over for inspection. We washed the clinging muck
from it in the muddy water beneath our feet. It was of
pink stone, finely chipped and gracefully shaped, and
undoubtedly made by the hand of man."

Hibbens concluded that the massive slaughter which he
had seen in the muck had been caused by worldwide
volcanic eruptions:

"One of the most interesting of the theories of the
Pleistocene end is that which explains this ancient
tragedy by world-wide, earthshaking volcanic eruptions
of catastrophic violence. This bizarre idea, queerly
enough, has considerable support, especially in the
Alaskan and Siberian regions.

"Interspersed in the muck depths and sometimes through
the very piles of bones and tusks themselves are
layers of volcanic ash. There is no doubt that
coincidental with the end of the Pleistocene animals,
at least in Alaska, there were volcanic eruptions of
tremendous proportions. It stands to reason that
animals whose flesh is still preserved must have been
killed and buried quickly to be preserved at all.
Bodies that die and lie on the surface soon
disintegrate and the bones are scattered. A volcanic
eruption would explain the end of the Alaskan animals
all at one time, and in a manner that would satisfy
the evidences there as we know them. The herds would
be killed in their tracks either by the blanket of
volcanic ash covering them and causing death by heat
or suffocation, or indirectly by the volcanic gases.
Toxic clouds of gas from volcanic upheavals could well
cause death on a gigantic scale. If every individual,
old and young, were killed, extinction would naturally
follow."

Alaska is a seismically active area with many
volcanoes, some of which Hibbens himself had seen
erupting, and it seems not unnatural that Hibbens
assumed that the ash which he saw in the mucks came
from volcanoes. One problem with this explanation is
that the known volcanoes did not massively erupt world
wide around this time. Another problem with this
explanation is that several Native American peoples
clearly remember that the dust which Hibbens saw came
from a comet.

Cleaarly Hibben's description of the area where he
made his point find and the location studied by the
later archaeologists you mention do not match. But
then perhaps the point of their exercise was simply to
smear Hibbens and catastrophism? On the other hand, I
can think of no reason why Hibbens would engage in
fraud. Provide me with one and I'll consider your
arguments.

"It is simply impossible for a single extraterrestrial
impact to have caused multiple Pleistocene extinction
events." But that is exactly what several of the
first peoples remembered. You can read their account
in my book ($25 through Crow Clan Jewelry).

Mr.Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas


Message: 6
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul <bristolia at yahoo.com>
Subject: [meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck (Mucks),
Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited (Long)

Mr. Grondine wrote;

"Thanks for the references to the post war research,
but I think you overstate your case."

"Anyone, who takes the time and trouble to read
through what is called above " post war research",
instead of mindlessly dismissing it as "baffling BS"
will find that what you "think" is absolutely wrong."
Actually, the baffling was attempted by bringing
irrelevant facts into the discussion, to try to avoid
the key points.

"These publications provide overwhelming evidence and
arguments that show that I have not overstated
the case for the so-called Alaskan being composed
largely of eolian sediment, called "loess", and
colluvial and other deposits reworked from it and the
complete lack of either any megatsunami deposits or
layers composed entirely of impact ejecta.

You continued:

"Surely no archeological remains from 2 to 3 million
years ago are in the deposits which I refered to, and
which Hibbens examined.

Given that Hibben (1943) studied "muck" deposits
exposed in the grounds of the Fairbanks Exploration
Company in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska.", it is
quite clear that he did not limit his examination to
only those Alaskan "muck deposits", which contained
archaeology. Some of the peat layers (paleosols),
which are mentioned in Hibben (1943) likely are tens
to hundreds of thousands of years old. The youngest
known "forest of trees", which occurs buried in the
deposits, which Hibben studied, is the Eva Forest Bed.
This bed has been dated as being about 125,000 years
old (Pewe et al. 1997).Thus, you are quite wrong about
Hibben having only examined so-called "Alaskan muck
deposits" containing archaeology."

You've intentionally mistated my point, Paul. The only
deposit of interest here is the holocene start
deposit, with find.

"Lacking any sort of radiometric dating to guide him,
Hibben (1943) wrongly assumed that all of the
so-called "muck deposits", which he was studying, are
young enough to contain archaeology.

References

Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.

Pewe, T. L., and others, 1997, Eva Interglaciation
Forest Bed, Unglaciated East-Central Alaska: Global
Warming 125,000 Years Ago. Geological Society of
America Special Paper no. 319, Geological Society of
America, Boulder, CO.

Ah hah, we get to the point. "global warming"

You continued:

"The strata that I refered to did have archaeological
remains. They were also the source for the mega-fauna
ivory that was used commonly in the United States for
the manufacture of billiard balls and piano keys at
the turn of the last century."

"Your distinction between Alaskan surficial strata
containing archaeological deposits and those that do
not contain them completely is a complete figment of
your imagination."

Oh really?

The parts of the Engineering and Fairbanks loesses and
Ready Bullion Formation, which contain archaeological
deposits, are identical in texture, sedimentary
structures, pedogenic (soil) structures, cyrogenic
structures, stratigraphic layering, composition and
other physical characteristics to the underlying and
older parts of these formations, which lack
archaeological deposits. If a person reads the papers,
which I provided citations for in my last post, they
will find that there is a complete lack of any
significant scientific evidence, which demonstrates
that your distinction between the surficial
strata containing archaeology and older strata, which
lack them, has any scientific basis. These citations,
all of which I have either read at one time or the
other, can be found at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html

In fact, if person takes the time to look at what has
been published about the archaeological geology of
cultural deposits found in these deposits as reported
in the peered-reviewed literature and Cultural
Resource Management reports, he or she will find that
I am not at all overstating the case to conclude that
there is a complete absence of any definite textural,
stratigraphic, compositional, or sedimentological
evidence for any of the archaeology-bearing
deposits being of impact origin. Instead, a person
find in these publications an abundance of data and
observations, which repeatedly demonstrates that these
surficial deposits consist of eolian deposits, called
loess, which have been modified by colluvial,
pedogenic, and other processes. One of these
publications is:

Esdale, J. A., Le Blanc, R. J., Cinq-Mars, J., 2001,
Periglacial geoarchaeology at the Dog Creek
site, Northern Yukon. Geoarchaeology. vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 151 ? 176

A long way from fairbanks, no?

This article provides a perfect example of the
colluvial deposits and loess, which have been
disturbed by solifluction, frost heave, and
cryoturbation, which comprise the deposits, which you
and other claim to be the result of the imaginary
catastrophe of choice."

Actually, I say impact tsunami. And it was not
imaginary.

Also, in 1978, archaeologists studied the location of
a site along the southern shore of Chinitna Bay
between Coffin Creek and Sea Otter Point, where Hibben
(1943) claimed to have found a Paleo-Indian point in
his "muck deposits? (Myers 1980). Using his
photographs,
they were able to relocate his site. Instead of any
tsunami deposits, they found "...marine muds and salt
marsh deposits which are capped by a layer of peat
and, in some locations, by colluvial sediments."
Within these sediments they found "one or more woody
peats or
paleosols...", of which one was the "humus stratum",
from which Hibben (1943) reported to have found
cultural material. They found that the layer of
"muck", which was reported by Hibben (1943), at this
site, likely consists of a stratum of oxidized marine
muds and salt marsh deposits. In situ wood samples
from a blue-grey clay, which underlay Hibben's
cultural stratum, yielded two C-14 dates:
1. a date of 375+/-120 radiocarbon years: 1575 A.D.
(GX-5655) and
2. a date of 300 +/-130 radiocarbon years: 1650 A.D.
(GX-5656)
(Myer 1980). Neither the early man occupation, mammoth
remains, nor any Pleistocene sediments capable of
containing them were found where Hibben (1943) stated
that he found them. Also, Hibben (1943) was wildly
wrong about the deposits exposed at Chinitna Bay being
**older** than the "muck deposits" near Fairbanks ,
Alaska. In this and, very likely many other cases,
Hibben grossly misinterpreted both the age and origin
of his Alaskan "muck deposits" and exhibited a vivid
imagination in what he has written about them.

References Cited:

Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.

Myers, T. P., Current research. American Antiquity.
vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 182-199.

You continued:

Why these mega-fauna all chose to die at the same
time is an interesting question."

This is a very fascinating question. However, abrupt
disappearance of megafauna have occurred during the
Pleistocene at different times, separated by tens of
thousands of years on different continents. The
abrupt extinction, which occurred at the end of the
last glacial stage is not the unique event, which you
and other catastrophists claim it to be. It is simply
impossible for a single extraterrestrial impact to
have caused multiple Pleistocene extinction events.
For an idea of the complex nature of the Pleistocene
extinctions, a person can read:

Barnosky, A. D., Koch, P. L., Feranec, R. S., Wing, S.
L., Shabel, A. B., 2004, Assessing the Causes of Late
Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents. Science.
vol. 306, pp. 70-75.

Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G., and
 Lister, A. M., 2004, Pleistocene to Holocene
extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth.
Nature, vol 431, pp. 684-689.

In addition, there were two periods of terminal
Pleistcoene megafauna extinctions in North America as
noted in Elias (1999) and Stafford et al. (2005) and
based upon 140 AMS radiocarbon dates from protein
extracted from bones of Pleistocene megafauna
collected from sites from all over North America.
concerning the research of Stafford and others, Elias
(1999) stated:

"It now appears that the major megafaunal extinction
event took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event
included the extinction of camels, horses, giant
sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of
megafaunal mammals that did not survive beyond 11,400
14C yr B.P., with the exception of the proboscideans.
Mammoths and mastodons persisted beyond 11,400 yr B.P.
Stafford et al. have dated the extinction of North
American mammoth and mastodon to 10,900-10,850 yr B.P.


That date agrees with Comet Encke being fragmented by
gravitational forces due to passing through the plane
of the solar system close to the Sun.

So it now appears that there were two distinct
extinction episodes. Each event took less than 100
years."

Also, the dating of dung, bones, and other tissue from
late Quaternary sloths, shows that not all of them
"chose to die at the same time". Steadman et al.
(2005) stated:

" Radiocarbon dates directly on dung, bones, or other
tissue of extinct sloths place their last appearance
datum at ?11,000 radiocarbon years before present
(yr BP) or slightly less in North America, 10,500 yr
BP in South America, and 4,400 yr BP on West
Indian islands."

This and other research certainly reveals that your
statement, "the mega-fauna all chose to die at the
same", grossly oversimplifies the complexity of
Pleistcoene extinctions. I seriously doubt that the
mega-fauna ?chose to die?, which sounds like they got
together in suicide pact, as the phrasing
unintentionally suggests. :-) :-)

Humor is lost on some people.- EP

References Cited:

Elias, S. A., 1999, Quaternary Paleobiology Update
Debate continues over the cause of Pleistocene
megafauna extinction. The Quaternary Times: Newsletter
of the American Quaternary Association. vol. 29,
no. 1, p. 3
http://www.amqua.org/publications/quaternarytimes/v29n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm

Stafford, Jr., T. W., Graham, R., Lundelius, R.,
Semken, H., McDonald, H., and Southon, J.,
2005,14C-Chronostratigraphy of Late Pleistocene
Megafauna Extinctions in Relation to Human
Presence in the New World. Clovis in the Southeast
Conference, October 26-29, 2005, The College of Arts &
Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia South
Carolina.
http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/stafford.html

Steadman, D. W., Martin, P. S., MacPhee, R. D. E.,
Jull, A. J. T., Donald,|H. G., Woods, C. A.,
Iturralde-Vinent, M., and Hodgins G. W. L., 2005,
Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths
on continents and islands. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science. vol. 102, no. 33, pp. 11763?11768.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1187974

You wrote:

"As far as depositional mechanisms goes, I do not
believe that there has been any work done on these
deposits since the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as
a geological process."

This is case of just because a person believes
something to be true does not make it true.

EP - How very very true.-EP

The depositional mechanisms of these Quaternary
deposits in Alaska have been discussed in various
publications since "the discovery of impact
mega-tsunami as a geological process." They include
Lagroix and Banerjee (2004, 2006), Muhs et al. (2003),
and Muhs and Budahn (2006).

Muhs and Budahn (2006), they did a very detail
geochemical and sedimentological analysis of these
Alaskan Quaternary deposits.

Muhs and Budahn (2006) found:

"Major-element geochemistry shows that Alaskan loess
also has been derived, at least in part, from
sediments
that have undergone one or more cycles of weathering
and Na-plagioclase depletion (Fig. 5). Loess in
Alaska,
as elsewhere, appears to have a large component of
particles that have undergone previous cycles of
weathering and specifically Na-plagioclase depletion.
Such particles could be derived from weathered soils,
sedimentary rocks that have experienced a significant
degree of diagenetic alteration, highly altered
metamorphic rocks, or some combination of these
protoliths."

and

"Fairbanks-area loesses also show typical UCC (upper-
crustal) compositions on REE plots (Fig. 9). Samples
at
all depths in all sections show enriched LREE,
negative
Eu anomalies, and relatively flat HREE curves. The
Alaskan loess REE trends are in agreement with those
reported by investigators who have studied loess
deposits from other regions (Taylor et al. 1983;
Gallet et al. 1996, 1998; Jahn et al. 2001).

They found the geochemical data to be indicative of
wind-blown sediments derived from the floodplains of
the in Tanana, Nenana, and Yukon rivers and typical
of other known loess deposits. There is nothing in
their geochemical data, which is indicative of any
extraterrestrial component.

References Cited:

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2004, The regional
and temporal significance of primary aeolian magnetic
fabrics preserved in Alaskan loess. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters. vol. 225, pp. 379? 395

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2006, Discussion of
"Geochemical evidence for the origin of late
Quaternary loess in central Alaska" Canadian Journal
of Earth Sciences. vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1887-1890.

Muhs, D. R. and Budahn, J. R., 2007, Geochemical
evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in
central Alaska. vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 323-337.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A., III,
McGeehin, J., Been, J. M., Beg?t, J. E., Pavich, M.
J., Stafford, T. W., Jr., and Stevens, D. S. P., 2003,
Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance of late
Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last
interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska:
Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986.

Also a person can look at ?A Complex Origin for the
Late Quaternary Loess in Central Alaska by D. R. Muhs
and J. R. Budahn at:
http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/AW2004/get_abstr.html?id=28

You continued:

"Hibben ascribed them to volcanic activity, and
saw volcanic ash."

The mindless manner in which you keep citing of "Saint
Hibbens" as if he is the infallible source of all
information about Pliocene and Quaternary deposits of
Alaska just indicates to me the extent that you and
other catastrophists are quite ignorant of any of
what you call ?post war research?.

Well, it was post war. - EP

This research clearly demonstrates that Hibben's
observations and interpretations, as in case of
Chinitna Bay, about these sediments are so badly
flawed, antiquated, and unreliable to the point they
are quite useless in any discussion of the origin of
these deposits. In addition to these problems, there
exists significant doubts about the basic integrity
of his research concerning both Sandia Cave and
Alaskan
early man sites. Some of these doubts are discussed in
detail in "The Mystery of Sandia Cave" by Douglas
Preston as published in the June 12, 1995 edition of
the New Yorker Magazine.

Anyone, who automatically assumes that Hibben is a
credible and trustworthy authority needs to read this
article.

Yes, there are thin volcanic ash beds ranging from
Pliocene, through the Pleistocene, and into the
Holocene in age, which occur these surficial Pliocene
and Quaternary sediments. All they prove is that
major volcanic eruptions, as is typical of the
Aleutian arc, have occurred throughout the late
Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene and 2. that the
deposits containing these thin ash beds accumulated
 episodically over the last two to three millions
years. The wide range of stratigraphically consistent
dates that have obtained from these ash beds soundly
demolishes any claim that these deposits, even the
loess and collivial deposits containing archaeology,
accumulated as the result of single catastrophic
event. In addition, the thinness of all of these ash
beds demonstrate cataclysmic volcanic eruption had
nothing to do with the formation of beds.

You continued:

"To my knowledge, they have never been examined
for impactites; the recent work that was done on the
holocene start impacts was privately funded to the
tune of some $70,000.

I think that ALL of these studies will need to be
re-examined before the questions of depositional
mechanisms is considered settled."

As summarized in Muhs et al. (2003), the fact of the
matter is that the depositional mechanisms that
created the Pliocene and Quaternary deposits covering
large areas of Alaska and Adjacent parts of Canada
have been repeatedly examined in very fine detail a
number of times and are extremely well known. There is
more
than enough data and observations to found in the
published literature to: 1. soundly demolish any
possibility that they contain any megatsunami deposits
and 2. demonstrate that they consist only of a mixture
of loess and colluvium largely derived from loess. An
re-examination of the depositional processes for these

deposits is the equivalent of beating a horse that is
not only dead, but has decomposed into a weathered
pile of bones. However, this is a free country. If you
want to waste your life; pour your personal money down
a rathole; and make a complete and utter fool of
yourself by trying to duplicating 60 years and a
couple
million dollars worth of geological research, it is
your problem not mine.

EP - Well, Paul, so far you have not mentioned any
researchers familiar with impact mega-tsunami, or who
would know what to look for. Some used to claim that
the dinosaurs were killed by food poisoning.- EP


Another is problem is that none of the numerous known
examples of tsunami and megatsunami deposits remotely
resemble any of the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and
Holocene deposits within the Fairbanks, Alaska region.
However, that is another two to three page essay and a
couple of dozen citations to add to this post.

Given the way loess accumulates, there could be widely
scattered extraterrestrial / impact-related material
to found in these deposits.
However, like the volcanic ash beds found in it, this
material will be completely unrelated to how these
sediments accumulated. Examples of such material,
which can be found in loess, is the horizon of
Australasian microtektites, which has been recognized
in loess sections in China (Li et al. 1993) and
impactite-bearing horizons found in Argentine loesses.
They would be more practical and productive stuff to
look for.

References Cited:

Li, C. L., Ouyang, Z. Y., Liu, T. S., An, Z. S., 1993.

Microtektites and glassy microspherules in loess?their
discoveries
and implications. Science in China B. vol. 36, pp.
1141?1152.

Muhs, D.R., and Bettis, E.A., III, 2003, Quaternary
loess-paleosol sequences as examples of climate-driven
sedimentary extremes:
Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370,
pp. 53-74
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/eolian/MuhsBettis2003GSAsp370.pdf

You wrote:

?Finally, you left Alain and Delair out of your
list of cranks.?

I failed to mention their book because I did not want
embarrass you by associating you with such a laughably
ignorant piece of pseudoscholarship. The degree to
which this book is functionally illiterate in its
understanding of Quaternary, planetary, and other
types of geology is shown by the manner in which it
confuses Midwestern glacial tills with either
megatsunami or volcanic deposits and argues that deep
sea manganese nodules are the result of an
extraterrestrial impact. This book consists of the
type
of very sloppy and careless thinking, which a person
expects to see in the answers to essay questions in
freshman level college courses, but not in a book,
which pretends to be a serious piece of scholarly
research. This book is one of the reasons that
research concerning terminal Pleistocene catastrophes
has acquired a significant ?giggle factor? among
conventional geologists.

Some web pages on manganese nodules:

Manganese nodules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/EarthScience/Oceanography/OceanSediments/Manganesenodules/Manganesenodules.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5504/abs/255130a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5082/abs/2131218a0.html

You finely wrote:

?But then as the saying goes, if you can't win on
points, baffle them with BS.?

That you have to dismiss 60 years of ?post war
research?, which I discussed in my post, out-of-hand
as ?BS? just shows to me how completely lacking in
either any evidence or arguments, outside of Hibben?s
antiquated and discredited research, which you have
to support your ideas about there being any tsunami
deposits in the so-called ?Alaskan muck?.

Paul - Why do I feel you're trying to obscure rather
than enlighten? Because generally, people use more
words when they're lying.

Why not use just a few words to tell me the reason why
Hibben's faked his research? I can think of many who
will go to extreme efforts to avoid admitting to
catastrophic impacts having occured, and I can tell
you why they do so...

Best Regards,
Paul H.

No Fool
EP



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
Received on Wed 11 Jul 2007 12:09:37 AM PDT