[meteorite-list] More Comments by Graham Hancock About Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

From: Paul <etchplain_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 19:28:01 -0500
Message-ID: <d5783d36-cd65-aca1-8a6f-5dd2e8e83d07_at_att.net>

Popular writer and fringe archaeologist Graham
Hancock has written a new and extended commentary
about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. He is quite
unhappy about he believes that he and other proponents
of this hypothesis have been treated by so-called
?gradualists? whoever they are, within the scientific
community. The commentary is at:

Why Science Should Cherish Its Rebels by Graham Hancock

Commentary by Jason Calavito on Hancock?s comments
can be found at:

In Major New Article, Graham Hancock Repeats Previous
Anti-Scientist Claims, Defends the Search for Atlantis
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog -- http://www.jasoncolavito.com

Related comments by Jason Calavito can be found in:

Academic Journal Runs Article Claiming G?bekli Tepe
Records Comet Strike, Misses Fact That Article Is Based
on Speculative Andrew Collins Book 4/22/2017


Orbiting the Graham Hancock Universe: "Archaeological
Fantasies" Explores Gobekli Tepe and Rebecca Bradley
Discusses Gunung Padang, 5/16/2017

G?bekli Tepe, Bad Fox, No Comet - Episode 73

Contrary to what Mr. Hancock seems to believe,
neocatastrophism has become popular among
geologists and scientists as discussed in:

Marriner, N., Morhange, C. and Skrimshire, S., 2010.
Geoscience meets the four horsemen?: Tracking the
rise of neocatastrophism. Global and Planetary
Change, 74(1), pp.43-48.

One item that Jason Calavito did not mention in his
commentaries, is that Mr. Hancock does not appreciate
the significance of recent research about the chronology
of the Missoula (Spokane) Floods and older ?Ancient
Cataclysmic Floods.? The identification of numerous
Missoula Floods has nothing to do with any imaginary
conspiracy by an equally imaginary cabal of nameless
?gradualists.? Rather the recognition is based upon
multiple, unconformity-bounded sets of flood deposits.
These flood deposits are separated subaerial exposure
surfaces in which paleosols, including some very
well-developed calcretes, and terrestrial animals
burrows have developed. There also are separate sets
of clastic dikes truncated at different unconformities.
Some of different sets of flood deposits have been
dated using, where possible, by radiocarbon dating
magnetostratigraphy, optically stimulated luminescence
dating, and tephrachronology. The oldest of these
deposits predate 1.77 million years ago. There exists
an abundance of published evidence that demonstrates
the occurrence of innumerable Missoula-like
megafloods over a period greater than 1.77 million

Also, Mr. Hancock overlooks Antonio Zamora ?s
badly flawed optically stimulated luminescence
arguments that ignores the context of these dates
and collaborating pollen records from the fills of
the Carolina Bays.

Finally, Mr. Hancock is seemingly unaware of the lack of
any credible evidence supporting the existence of Michael
Davias? seemingly imaginary Saginaw Bay impact
structure that is used to explain the Carolina Bays. The
geology that region is well known enough to show that
there is a complete lack of the deformation of bedrock
and overlying Quaternary deposits that such an impact
would have caused. Also, any geophysical signature of
such as impact structure is lacking. Finally, regional
sedimentary and paleoenvironmental archives for that
time period lack and are undisturbed by the ejecta
deposits that such an impact would have created. The
Saginaw Bay impact structure is just one of a few likely
imaginary Pleistocene impact craters that have been
reported in the Great lakes region.


Paul H.
Received on Tue 16 May 2017 08:28:01 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb