[meteorite-list] YD impact - doing as best they can

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <768423.12943.qm_at_web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Paul -

All I can do is re-iterate that there is no reason for several of the peoples to have made up stories of this impact, other than that it did occur. So I have a very pro-impact bias, which you can dismiss as nonsense based on fairly tales if you like. Except for the sudden drop in population evidenced by the ending of quarry usage.

While Firestone is a nuclear physicist with little geological training, in point of fact the layer with the markers is thin - there was not much material deposited by this impact, unlike Chicxulub and Shiva. So unless
Ivester was very careful in his sampling, he could have missed it. Others have elsewhere. We know we have annual spherule deposit, which NASA keeps trumpeting, but NOT impact nano-diamonds.

Also, it is entirely possible that neutron production in impact threw off Ivester's OSL dates. (Odessa again.)

As far as one point of impact goes, I can agree with you about not being in the Lakes. Why? The Five Nations would not have survived and left us their account of it. I still favor the Kiscoty, Alberta structure. Perhaps there are other similar structures evidencing impacts in ice sheets elsewhere, but then NASA is spending $0 looking for them.

Perhaps the Carolina Bays actually evidence secondary ejecta from another earlier impact? But then that would show that the impact hazard is even more serious, something which NASA is reluctant to admit.

Junk science? You get what you pay for, and from NASA anymore you get even less, i.e. Ares 1. When has NASA ever funded pro-impact research? What serious work are they funding, except those engaged in denial? What help did they provide Firestone, or anybody arguing for this impact? Tankersley at Sheriden Cave, near Sandusky, for example. Where is the money?

Is this because this was a comet impact, something which Morrison et al vigorously deny ever occur?

Dr. Firestone must be getting closer to nailing this one down, or he would not upset you so.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

>Paul wrote:

Dear Friends,

Dr. Firestone has outdid himself by publishing what is a rather
wretched piece of junk science on the Younger Dryas impact in
a new web "Journal". This paper is:

Firestone, R. B., 2009, The Case for the Younger Dryas
Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis
Extinction, 12,900 Years Ago. Journal of Cosmology. vol. 2,
pp. 256-285.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction105.html

I say that this paper is wretched because it shows a clear lack
of understanding of the published literature concerning various
aspects of geology and geomorphology For example, it completely
confuses the playa lakes of the High Plains with the Carolina Bays.
He either ignore or overlooks data and ignoring the research,
including dating of these features, that has been conducted by Dr.
Vance Holliday and others that completely refutes any association
between these lakes and the hypothesized Younger Dryas impact.

In addition, in this paper, Dr. Firestone, excluding the rather small
Charity Shoal feature whose age is still unknown, again claims
without any credible evidence that there are major impact structures
in the Great Lakes. This is based upon the unsupported and refutable
claim that glacial erosion is incapable of producing the deepest
parts of the Great Lakes. No mention is made of the documented
fact that undisturbed glacial tills and lake sediments predating the
Younger Dryas impact fill the lake bottom depressions, which Dr.
Firestone claims to Younger Dryas Impact craters.

In another case, Dr. Firestone dismisses out of hand, without any
credible explanation, the OSL dates of Dr. Alexander Ivester of the
Carolina Bays as being the result of improper sampling. Having
corresponded with Dr. Ivester I know that he was very, very careful
in his sampling. The unsupported claims by Dr. Firestone of Dr.
Ivester engaging in careless sampling is not only entirely unfounded,
but is a quite ignorant and completely undeserved insult on Dr.
Ivester's ability as a very exacting Quaternary geologist and
geochronologist. Dr. Ivester is very well trained in geomorphology
and Quaternary and was trained by one of the best Quaternary
geologists in business in the Southeast, Dr. David Leigh. Also, if
Dr. Firestone would look at the geologicalmaps of the Pleistocene
terraces of the North Atlantic coastal plain, he would find that the
Carolina Bays are only found on fluvial and coast-wise terraces that
are older than Marine Isotope Stage 2, which readily refutes any
claim that they formed by a much younger Younger Dryas impact.

All this paper will accomplish is cause geologists and Quaternary
geologists to ignore the serious research being conducted by other
scientists into the validity of Younger Dryas hypothesis. This paper
shows the same basic illiteracy in geology and geomorphology
that characterizes "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a
Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture."

Yours,

Paul H.




      
Received on Wed 11 Nov 2009 11:30:20 AM PST