Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rant about Ice Ages and real science

Expand Messages
  • Rick Osmon
    I see you figured out how to post to the photo file. It gives a whole new meaning to calling Australia the land down under . If you wish to put the pic inside
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 3, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I see you figured out how to post to the photo file. It gives a whole new meaning to calling Australia the "land down under". If you wish to put the pic inside the post, you have to get better help than I can provide. I'm sure it can be done, because I've seen posts with pics. They were always copied from other web sources then pasted here.
       
      I also think that [the] move of the Indian sub platewas expedited by the  shift, but is still going on. And it may havebeen underway before the  shift.diagram of plate collision 

      I'll try this again.  (In trying to post some pictures, I <back>ed myself into erasing what I'd written.)

      This is entirely possible, if continental drift is anything more than a wet dream, and I don't know if it is true or not.   If they thought that the differential between the equatorial and polar diameters was 13miles, but it is only 50 feet (per your comment noted below), then I think it entirely possible that their claims to being able to measure the continents moving apart at 1/8" a year or whatever may have some debatability to them.  I honestly don't know, but I don't think they do yet, either.

      NASA's laser altimetry studies foundthat the sphere is oblate to the  extent of about only fifty feet.--Completely negligible compared to a  7,926.28 miles diameter
      To me, this is amazing.  Even at 13 miles, the Earth is more more spherical than a billiard ball, and now that it is only 50 feet - what can I say?

      Well, here is what I say:

      If right, then once again, scientists are caught with their pants down.  They had conjuredup a bunch of hooey, based on that 13 miles, explaining it as due tothis or that, centrifugal force, blah, blah, blah...  All of those explanations were just drivel, logicking backward from something they thought was valid and wasn't, but giving the public the idea that theyactually knew what they were talking about.  What they were doing was speculating - which if you and I did it would be called pulling it all out of our arses.  Well, if the arse fits, where it, scientists!
      They would first have to acquire grant money to study how one fits an arse, then drag out the research well beyond the assigned study period, acquire additional funds for follow up studies, then publish and peer review the process. The end result is informed speculation.

      ...I think I both misread your point and again failed to convey mypoint.   Your statement is correct. My point is that, in Hapgood'stheory, assuming no unusual outside influence on the Earth's weather,the ice  must accumulate to roughly the same latitudes and roughly the same  thickness on all land masses.
      I don't think this last statement is correct, from what I know.  The latitude part is basically correct, I think, but not the thickness part.  Antarctica,for example, being a desert, has several areas that are bare rock -including open water in at least one place.  This argues counter toyour statement.  Now Greenland, on the other hand, does have fairly consistent ice thickness overall, not counting the southern shoreline areas.  But that may have a large additional component to blame beside sthe latitude - the ocean currents and the way they bring moisture inthe form of snow.  Antarctica's wind patterns are quite different,though I don't know squat about it; I am intuitively certain of it, but have no evidence to present to support it.
      I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer / northern winter.  This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles 
      Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the precession, and axial tilt

      ... That would make much more total ice mass  on Eurasia than on North America.
      If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice mass would be in North America?  Doesn't this conlfict with your next sentence? :

      Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict, but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.  Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of view of the ancients.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png

      [  click here  for  map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

      Notice that the glacier didn't cover Alaska or Greenland. In Hapgood's theory, with the pole centered in Hudson's Bay, both those land masses should have been in the north polar or Arctic region before the shift. Also be aware that there was glacial ice covering northern Europe at the height of the glaciation. There is some (disputed) evidence that, in the Atlantic, the pack ice extended as far south as the 42nd parallel.

      Since the slippage moved North America  to the south, the vastly greater ice mass must have been there.



      Otherwise,the move would have been in the opposite direction. The ice accumulation was comparatively very localized, i.e., compared to "normal" weather patterns and conventional glaciation theory.


      Thisis pretty much the direction that Hapgood's logic was going.  The main physics and mechanics that he had to show were in answer to these questions:
      1. Was there enough mass for centrifugal force to propel not only the ice cap up toward the equator, but also to drag the crust with it?
      2. Was the eccentricity of the center of gravity enough?
      3. Was there enough grip between the ice and the crust?
      4. Why didn't the ice cap just flow in that direction by itself?
        • I may have a partial answer to that:  If the 'grain of the valleys ran counter to the direction the the ice cap wanted to go, then the ridges would have both prevented the ice flowing that direction, but also given the ice a shoulder to 'push' against...


          In North America the mountains and valleys, in general, run north and south, while in  Europe, they run primarily east and west. In Asia, they are a hodge podge.
      I could use some help in posting images here.  I want to show what theearth's alignment might have been, pre-shift.  I think it illustrates general latitudes of locations and affords some interesting speculations about ocean currents and wind currents.

      Can someone help me?

      . . . . Steve
    • bigalemc2
      This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick. I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while... Yes, I
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick.  I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while...

        Yes, I did find the Photos place to post my images, but had wanted to paste them within the post, and it didn't work, though the site says we can use HTML language.  I am not an expert on HTML, but thought I could manage it, but it didn't work.  If it si possible, I will figure it out, then let you know what I did.

        I would also like to add lines of latitude to the images, as well as do a polar shot looking down, also with lines of latitude shown as circles.  What I would really like to do is a 3D model, but cannot even find one so far.

        BTW, one aspect of your info about NASA finding there is only a 50-foot differential between the polar and equatorial diameters is that, if true, it shoots down my own rationale about the Great Rift.  With only 50 feet difference, there would certainly not be enough tension induced to rip it open.  I would like to know if you can steer me to that info, so I can see if there is anything about it that may be fishy?  If nothing comes up, I need to revise my thinking a bit, for sure.

        I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in  southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's  eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer /  northern winter. This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles>  Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the  precession, and axial tilt.
        I am aware of Milankovitch cycles, but not really knowledgeable about them.  I agree with part of the principle idea, that the variations of the obliquity (tilt relative to the Sun) and the variations in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit would effect the severity of the seasons, as well as the durations of them.  That seems a no brainer.  Some of the other parts of the M cycles - the Earth going higher or lower above the ecliptic, or the precession - these seem to be more subtle and not as easy to see how they could effect climate here.  At the same time, the periodicity of each of the types of variations seems to hold true, so something is going on.  The 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles are almost exactly 4 precession cycles; is that an accident?  Yet, if precession is a causative factor, why doesn't it kick in every precession cycle, and not just one out of four?

        Like the scientists who took the 13-mile difference in the Earth's equatorial vs polar diameters and ran with that (now proven to be false) information, are the scientists in this case projecting backward based on some ill-gotten belief in ice ages?  One's paradigm dictates what one perceives or even can perceive. 

        If the Milankovitch cycles are real, what is the data?  I know that almost all data points in climate graphs are from what are called "proxy" records - ice cores, ocean bottom cores, tree rings, etc.  "Proxy" means that the temperatures are implied, not measured.  This leads to large tolerance on the temps implied and used to draw those graphs.  And the farther back in time the data points are, the greater the tolerance.  Add to that the fact that those data points do not represent the entire earth, although that is what the climatologists suggest by using them.  There are very, very, very few data points for the time periods (one division equals 100,000 years) covered by the Milankovitch cycle graphs.  It would be like projecting the average temperature of the planet for the whole 10,000 years since the 'ice age' from one single solitary temperature measurement in Chicago in 1952, as measured from tree ring data - not even from a thermometer.  How accurate do you think that would be?  It might give you something within 20 degrees F.  What would it tell you about what was going on in the tropics?  In Australia?
         
         ... That would make much more total ice mass on Eurasia than on North  America.  If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice  mass would be in North America? Doesn't this conlfict with your next  sentence? :
        Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict,  but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.   Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it  means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling  about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble  to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the  same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of  view of the ancients.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png
        That map has this caption:
        "Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. Theaccumulation of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level loweringof about 120 m. Also, the Alps and the Himalayas were covered byglaciers. Winter sea ice coverage was much more limited in the south."
        I have a serious problem with that map in particular.  Velikovsky in Earth In Upheaval, pointed out the - literally - mountains of mammoth bones and the bones of other very large mammals on the Liakhov and New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia - all deposited at the same time as the end of the last 'ice age', i.e, 10,500 bce or so.  The islands had, in the 1800s, cliffs 200 feet high, of mostly bones.  In addition, the number of the bones is completely unfathomable - again, literally, since a huge number of them are on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean all the way to the mainland of Siberia.  How many are on the sea bottom is anybody's guess.  My point here is that those animals, could not have lived at that latitude - only 15 degrees from the present North Pole - in the conditions that existed during the ice age as they represent it and as mapped.  With 3000-4000 meters of ice, what food existed for those huge animals that each have to eat 200 pounds a day?  3000 meters is about 10,000 feet thick.  4000 meters is about 13,000 feet thick.  It is known how old those bones are, and they do date from about 10,500 bce, so you cannot have both things present at that time, the mammoths and the ice.  One of them simply doesn't fit.  Since the mammoths are hard fact, while the map is someone's best guess, I vote that the mammoth bones and carcasses dictate our conception of the reality: There had to be something there to eat, therefore the ice sheets did not exist there at that time.

        Instead of them presenting any mechanism to explain the existence of these islands' huge heaps of such bones, they choose to ignore these 'inconvenient truths'.  That is the only way they could possibly have drawn such a map.

        In Path of the Pole, Hapgood mentions that we all have this misconception that during the last 'ice age' the ice sheets extended down to approximately the same latitude all around the poles, in both hemispheres, but he says that was not the case at all.
        ...Our assumption of a pole in Hudson Bay confronts us with the problem of explaining why, with that location of the pole [Hudson Bay, at about 60N, 83W], there was  a glaciation in Europe, the northern part of which would have been farther from the pole than now, and the same problem arises with Alaska.  Why, during the ice age, did Alaska have many mountain glaciers but no continuous ice sheet?

        The explanation of the glaciation f northwestern Europe is, I think, as follows.  First, the heaviest glaciation of Europe was not contemporary with the Wisconsin ice sheet but was the consequence of an earlier polar position, which will be discussed further on.


        [ <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/laurentide.gif> click here
         for map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

        Hmm - I have never seen the ice sheet go all the way to the Pacific Ocean in any mapping before.  It is also a bit weird that that it shows the ice sheet not extending across the Arctic Ocean to Siberia.  That actually agrees with Hapgood, but the close configuration of the edges of the ice sheet with the coasts makes me suspicious of their methodology.  (Color me slightly confused...)
         
         . . . . Steve

      • bigalemc2
        Rick and all - Has anyone, anywhere, ever done any thinking about the idea that Clovis man - who couldn t have numbered any more than half a million or so (my
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick and all -

          Has anyone, anywhere, ever done any thinking about the idea that
          Clovis man - who couldn't have numbered any more than half a million
          or so (my wild guess) on the whole of North America - wiped out the
          mammoths here, when at the same time the mammoths in northern Siberia
          were getting their bones piled up in small mountains and spread all
          over the sea bottom north of Siberia?

          These things supposedly happened at the same time.  Was that a
          coincidence?  If either event did not happen, we likely would have
          mammoths alive to this day.

          I am well aware that the Clovis First theory has finally been found to be
          another one of those intransigent scientists' (but ultimately unscientific) reconstructions based on false assumptions that is now shot to hell.
           But Clovis First had a lot of corollary hypotheses that need to also
          be thrown out and then re-thought out.

          Was there a connection between the extinction in the eastern
          hemisphere and the one in the western hemisphere?  The mammoths in
          North America extended much further south - at least as far south as the Valley of Mexico,  the area around Mexico City (18N), far south of the ice sheet limits.  The vast majority of the ones killed in Asia were at 75N, present alignment.  What is common to both?  In the non-catastrophic paradigm, wherein the temps just happened to cool down by 20-30 degrees F or whatever, there is no common thread between the two.  It simply doesn't make a lot of sense that they would be living in such vastly different climates, IMHO.

          But if crustal shift is taken into account, with the North Pole at
          Hudson Bay, then the two mammoth populations would have been at nearly
          the same latitudes. Since those areas are no longer at those
          latitudes, it follows that a shift (crustal or otherwise) must have
          happened.  And since it did not happen slowly - we would have lots of
          evidence of that, if it happened - it must have been violent.

          That brings up the question: Has anyone thought to look at North
          American mammoth skeletons for evidence of a tsunami-like or
          avalanche-type catastrophe causing their deaths?  Any seriously
          smashed bones?  Any striations?  Have these been noticed but assigned
          to Clovis man?

          If they were in Asia, how far north were they?  One site has this about elephants in Asia (sounding like a web page where they were shooting down non-scientist's assertions):
          (Incidentally, even modern Asian elephants tolerate cold fairly well. Elephants lived as far north as the Honan province in China into early historical times (1500 B.C.). Asian elephants also lived in what is now Syria, Iraq, and Iran. African loxodonts used to inhabit the whole of the African continent into historic times.)
          Now, if you laughed at this last sentence, join the club.  To refer to Syria, Iraq and Iran as cold, relative to extreme northern Siberia is an utter joke.  And if you will look at the map of Chinese provinces, Hunan ("Honan") is at about 30N latitude.  That is about as "far north" as New Orleans!  Syria is at about 35N, Iraq is about 30-36N, Iran is about 25N-39N.  What drug is that guy on?

          . . . . Steve

          P.S. More on Mammoths later - including some good, solid facts about the frozen ones, Berezovka and all...
        • bigalemc2
          Oops!
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Oops!
          • Rick Osmon
            This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick. I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while... Yes, I
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick.  I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while...

              Yes, I did find the Photos place to post my images, but had wanted to paste them within the post, and it didn't work, though the site says we can use HTML language.  I am not an expert on HTML, but thought I could manage it, but it didn't work.  If it si possible, I will figure it out, then let you know what I did.

              I would also like to add lines of latitude to the images, as well as do a polar shot looking down, also with lines of latitude shown as circles.  What I would really like to do is a 3D model, but cannot even find one so far.

              BTW, one aspect of your info about NASA finding there is only a 50-foot differential between the polar and equatorial diameters is that, if true, it shoots down my own rationale about the Great Rift.  With only 50 feet difference, there would certainly not be enough tension induced to rip it open.  I would like to know if you can steer me to that info, so I can see if there is anything about it that may be fishy?  If nothing comes up, I need to revise my thinking a bit, for sure.
              To the best of my recollection, that info  came out of the ICESAT mission. I looked through some of the info at NASA's self-promotion site, but didn't find the reference (there is a lot of material, very little of it related directly to this discussion, and I'm a little pressed for time this morning). I think I saw it first in Science Daily. The latter has a pretty good search tool for their archives.
              http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/list.php
              http://www.sciencedaily.com/
              I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in  southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's  eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer /  northern winter. This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles>  Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the  precession, and axial tilt.
              I am aware of Milankovitch cycles, but not really knowledgeable about them.  I agree with part of the principle idea, that the variations of the obliquity (tilt relative to the Sun) and the variations in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit would effect the severity of the seasons, as well as the durations of them.  That seems a no brainer.  Some of the other parts of the M cycles - the Earth going higher or lower above the ecliptic, or the precession - these seem to be more subtle and not as easy to see how they could effect climate here.  At the same time, the periodicity of each of the types of variations seems to hold true, so something is going on.  The 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles are almost exactly 4 precession cycles; is that an accident?  Yet, if precession is a causative factor, why doesn't it kick in every precession cycle, and not just one out of four?
              And THAT, dear Steve, is the $64,000 question.

              Like the scientists who took the 13-mile difference in the Earth's equatorial vs polar diameters and ran with that (now proven to be false) information, are the scientists in this case projecting backward based on some ill-gotten belief in ice ages?  One's paradigm dictates what one perceives or even can perceive. 

              If the Milankovitch cycles are real, what is the data?  I know that almost all data points in climate graphs are from what are called "proxy" records - ice cores, ocean bottom cores, tree rings, etc.  "Proxy" means that the temperatures are implied, not measured.  This leads to large tolerance on the temps implied and used to draw those graphs.  And the farther back in time the data points are, the greater the tolerance.  Add to that the fact that those data points do not represent the entire earth, although that is what the climatologists suggest by using them.  There are very, very, very few data points for the time periods (one division equals 100,000 years) covered by the Milankovitch cycle graphs.  It would be like projecting the average temperature of the planet for the whole 10,000 years since the 'ice age' from one single solitary temperature measurement in Chicago in 1952, as measured from tree ring data - not even from a thermometer.  How accurate do you think that would be?  It might give you something within 20 degrees F.  What would it tell you about what was going on in the tropics?  In Australia?
               
               ... That would make much more total ice mass on Eurasia than on North  America.  If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice  mass would be in North America? Doesn't this conlfict with your next  sentence? :
              Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict,  but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.   Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it  means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling  about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble  to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the  same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of  view of the ancients.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png
              That map has this caption:
              "Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. Theaccumulation of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level loweringof about 120 m. Also, the Alps and the Himalayas were covered byglaciers. Winter sea ice coverage was much more limited in the south."
              I have a serious problem with that map in particular.  Velikovsky in Earth In Upheaval, pointed out the - literally - mountains of mammoth bones and the bones of other very large mammals on the Liakhov and New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia - all deposited at the same time as the end of the last 'ice age', i.e, 10,500 bce or so.  The islands had, in the 1800s, cliffs 200 feet high, of mostly bones.  In addition, the number of the bones is completely unfathomable - again, literally, since a huge number of them are on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean all the way to the mainland of Siberia.  How many are on the sea bottom is anybody's guess.  My point here is that those animals, could not have lived at that latitude - only 15 degrees from the present North Pole - in the conditions that existed during the ice age as they represent it and as mapped.  With 3000-4000 meters of ice, what food existed for those huge animals that each have to eat 200 pounds a day?  3000 meters is about 10,000 feet thick.  4000 meters is about 13,000 feet thick.  It is known how old those bones are, and they do date from about 10,500 bce, so you cannot have both things present at that time, the mammoths and the ice.  One of them simply doesn't fit.  Since the mammoths are hard fact, while the map is someone's best guess, I vote that the mammoth bones and carcasses dictate our conception of the reality: There had to be something there to eat, therefore the ice sheets did not exist there at that time.

              Instead of them presenting any mechanism to explain the existence of these islands' huge heaps of such bones, they choose to ignore these 'inconvenient truths'.  That is the only way they could possibly have drawn such a map.

              In Path of the Pole, Hapgood mentions that we all have this misconception that during the last 'ice age' the ice sheets extended down to approximately the same latitude all around the poles, in both hemispheres, but he says that was not the case at all.
              ...Our assumption of a pole in Hudson Bay confronts us with the problem of explaining why, with that location of the pole [Hudson Bay, at about 60N, 83W], there was  a glaciation in Europe, the northern part of which would have been farther from the pole than now, and the same problem arises with Alaska.  Why, during the ice age, did Alaska have many mountain glaciers but no continuous ice sheet?

              The explanation of the glaciation f northwestern Europe is, I think, as follows.  First, the heaviest glaciation of Europe was not contemporary with the Wisconsin ice sheet but was the consequence of an earlier polar position, which will be discussed further on.


              [ <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/laurentide.gif> click here
               for map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

              Hmm - I have never seen the ice sheet go all the way to the Pacific Ocean in any mapping before.  It is also a bit weird that that it shows the ice sheet not extending across the Arctic Ocean to Siberia.  That actually agrees with Hapgood, but the close configuration of the edges of the ice sheet with the coasts makes me suspicious of their methodology.  (Color me slightly confused...)
               
               . . . . Steve

              I'll have to come back to this discussion on Monday evening as I have to take care of some pressing business the rest of today and will be away all day tomorrow. Good points to ponder, Steve.

              Later

              Oz

            • bigalemc2
              Rick - Something to add to our discussion - This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration. (Are Clovis points and their dissemination
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Rick -

                Something to add to our discussion -

                This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration.  (Are Clovis points and their dissemination on-topic on this forum?  I am not at all sure where the line gets drawn.  Are we mostly about the period when there was likely commerce between North America and Europe?  And if so, how much afield can we go?)

                I was watching something on National Geographic (I believe) about a theory that there was a cometary impact called the Younger Dryas Impact Event that may have occurred shortly before the Clovis points started showing up all over North America.

                They made the point that Clovis points are all found in a very narrow time window, which is something I hadn't heard before.

                The scientists on the show actually were posing the Younger Dryas event as a possible killer of the mammoths.

                Although TV science shows all point to humans as the exterminators of the mammoths, in scientific circles it is NOT anything close to a confirmed "kill".  I've never considered it a remote possibility, partly from an intuitive POV, but also thinking about how many mammoths there were and how widespread they were, and to think that the very few humans on the continent could have even located all of them seemed ludicrous.

                Now, to find out that Clovis was only around for a short time makes my argument even stronger.

                And with the Younger Dryas impact event option out there, too, maybe the humans killed all the mammoths fantasy can be laid to rest before too long.

                Here is what Wikipedia -> Younger Dryas Impact Event  has to say about the impact:

                The evidence for such an impact event is a layer of unusualmaterials (Nanodiamonds, magnetic grains, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, charcoal, soot, fullerenesenriched in Helium 3, etc.) at the very bottom of the "black mat" oforganic material that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas. 

                It is hypothesized that this impact event brought about theextinction of many North American large mammals. These animals included camels, mammoths, the short-faced bear and numerous other species. The markers for the impact event also appear at the end of the Clovis culture.

                The "black mat", on the show, was explained as burned carbon, probably from massive conflagrations set off by the impact, something they said that had been thought to be possibility but not actually seen before.  All the Clovis points were in the layers just above that black mat.

                Wikipedia -> Clovis point  has these two passages:
                The Clovis tradition "known as a sophisticated stone technology basedon a point that was fastened to the end of hunting spear flourishedbetween 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. in the central Plains, on their westernmargins, and over a large area of what is now the eastern United States.

                ...At this time, there have been no Clovis points found in the Old World or in Alaska. However, the Solutrean hypothesis suggests that Clovis culture developed from the similar Solutreanof southwestern Europe, and that the technology may have been broughtto America through migration along the Atlantic pack ice edge usingsurvival skills similar to that of modern Inuit people.
                The duration is incredibly short, IMHO, suggesting to me some kind of disruption ended the Clovis culture.

                I am familiar with the Solutrean hypothesis and think it is prima facie evidence of European-American contact then, if not outright commerce.  (Yeah, this is certainly on-topic!)

                The timing of European-American contact so close to this Younger Dryas event, as well as to the extermination of the mammoths makes for interesting contemplations... Puzzles of this type are exciting to delve into, knowing that the evidence available now is insufficient and that as further developments come along the ideas will change.  What will be the end reality, I wonder?

                I imagine most of you know more than I do about this.  Anyone want to chip in?

                . . . . Steve
              • Rick Osmon
                Sorry it took so l ooong to get back to this. Been really, really busy. Clovis is not so much a culture as it is a technology. The gist of what the academics
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 11, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry it took so l ooong to get back to this. Been really, really busy.

                  "Clovis" is not so much a culture as it is a technology. The gist of what the academics are saying is that whatever catastrophic event wiped out the megafuana also was the demise of the people who knew how to make those points.

                  The YDE deposits sit on top of Clovis sites, not under them.

                  Also germane to this discussion and my hypothesis, is the description by the principle investigators  that the Michigan site is considered to be very near the main impact site.

                  "Gainey, north of Detroit, Michigan, is a PaleoAmerican campsite that was located a few tens of kilometers from the southern margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at 12.9 ka. Gainey gave its name to the distinctive fluted point style found there, and Gainey sediments contained some of the highest abundances of YDB markers found, suggesting that the YD impact was centered nearby"

                  Remember the Martian meteorite that supposedly had fossilized bacteria in it? It was found in Antarctica and dates to about the same time as the Younger Dryas event. But I never did find any information about how NASA knew it was of Martian origin, only how they dated it (ice cores). Somewhere around here, I have a photo of myself, my then Congressional Rep, and one of the NASA scientists who worked on that project. He couldn't answer my question either, since his specialty was other than astronomy.

                  That age, 13,000 years, is also the age where C14 dating accuracy starts falling off drastically.

                  If you consider that all that carbon, in places 5 mm thick, was in the atmosphere before settling over the entire northern 2/3rds of North America, you can see how much sunlight was blocked for some indeterminate period. My other major question is, does a corresponding layer sit atop the Siberian mammoths? Predominant winds pattern says "almost certainly", but I don't think anybody has actually looked for it.

                  The other intriguing aspect of the timing is Plato's dating of Atlantis' demise...but I'll save that one for later.

                  P.S. -- Geodes are fossilized hailstones

                  Oz

                  --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Rick -
                  >
                  > Something to add to our discussion -
                  >
                  > This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration. (Are
                  > Clovis points and their dissemination on-topic on this forum? I am not
                  > at all sure where the line gets drawn. Are we mostly about the period
                  > when there was likely commerce between North America and Europe? And if
                  > so, how much afield can we go?)
                  >
                  > I was watching something on National Geographic (I believe) about a
                  > theory that there was a cometary impact called the Younger Dryas Impact
                  > Event that may have occurred shortly before the Clovis points started
                  > showing up all over North America.
                  >
                  > They made the point that Clovis points are all found in a very narrow
                  > time window, which is something I hadn't heard before.
                  >
                  > The scientists on the show actually were posing the Younger Dryas event
                  > as a possible killer of the mammoths.
                  >
                  > Although TV science shows all point to humans as the exterminators of
                  > the mammoths, in scientific circles it is NOT anything close to a
                  > confirmed "kill". I've never considered it a remote possibility, partly
                  > from an intuitive POV, but also thinking about how many mammoths there
                  > were and how widespread they were, and to think that the very few humans
                  > on the continent could have even located all of them seemed ludicrous.
                  >
                  > Now, to find out that Clovis was only around for a short time makes my
                  > argument even stronger.
                  >
                  > And with the Younger Dryas impact event option out there, too, maybe the
                  > humans killed all the mammoths fantasy can be laid to rest before too
                  > long.
                  >
                  > Here is what Wikipedia -> Younger Dryas Impact Event
                  > <> has to say
                  > about the impact:
                  >
                  > The evidence for such an impact event is a layer of unusualmaterials
                  > (Nanodiamonds, magnetic grains, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules,
                  > charcoal, soot, fullerenesenriched in Helium 3, etc.) at the very bottom
                  > of the "black mat" oforganic material that marks the beginning of the
                  > Younger Dryas.
                  >
                  > It is hypothesized that this impact event brought about theextinction of
                  > many North American large mammals. These animals included camels,
                  > mammoths, the short-faced bear and numerous other species. The markers
                  > for the impact event also appear at the end of the Clovis culture.
                  > The "black mat", on the show, was explained as burned carbon, probably
                  > from massive conflagrations set off by the impact, something they said
                  > that had been thought to be possibility but not actually seen before.
                  > All the Clovis points were in the layers just above that black mat.
                  >
                  > Wikipedia -> Clovis point <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_points>
                  > has these two passages:
                  > The Clovis tradition "known as a sophisticated stone technology basedon
                  > a point that was fastened to the end of hunting spear flourishedbetween
                  > 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. in the central Plains, on their westernmargins,
                  > and over a large area of what is now the eastern United States.
                  >
                  > ...At this time, there have been no Clovis points found in the Old World
                  > or in Alaska. However, the Solutrean hypothesis suggests that Clovis
                  > culture developed from the similar Solutreanof southwestern Europe, and
                  > that the technology may have been broughtto America through migration
                  > along the Atlantic pack ice edge usingsurvival skills similar to that of
                  > modern Inuit people.
                  > The duration is incredibly short, IMHO, suggesting to me some kind of
                  > disruption ended the Clovis culture.
                  >
                  > I am familiar with the Solutrean hypothesis and think it is prima facie
                  > evidence of European-American contact then, if not outright commerce.
                  > (Yeah, this is certainly on-topic!)
                  >
                  > The timing of European-American contact so close to this Younger Dryas
                  > event, as well as to the extermination of the mammoths makes for
                  > interesting contemplations... Puzzles of this type are exciting to delve
                  > into, knowing that the evidence available now is insufficient and that
                  > as further developments come along the ideas will change. What will be
                  > the end reality, I wonder?
                  >
                  > I imagine most of you know more than I do about this. Anyone want to
                  > chip in?
                  >
                  > . . . . Steve
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.