Comprehensive analysis of impact spherules supports theory of cosmic impact 12,800 years ago

May 21, 2013
The researchers studied the impact spherules in 18 sites in nine countries on four continents for this study. Credit: YDB Research Group

About 12,800 years ago when the Earth was warming and emerging from the last ice age, a dramatic and anomalous event occurred that abruptly reversed climatic conditions back to near-glacial state. According to James Kennett, UC Santa Barbara emeritus professor in earth sciences, this climate switch fundamentally –– and remarkably –– occurred in only one year, heralding the onset of the Younger Dryas cool episode.

The cause of this cooling has been much debated, especially because it closely coincided with the abrupt extinction of the majority of the large animals then inhabiting the Americas, as well as the disappearance of the prehistoric , known for its big game hunting.

"What then did cause the extinction of most of these big animals, including mammoths, , giant ground sloths, American camel and horse, and saber- toothed cats?" asked Kennett, pointing to 's 1845 assessment of the significance of climate change. "Did these extinctions result from human overkill, or some catastrophic event?" The long debate that has followed, Kennett noted, has recently been stimulated by a growing body of evidence in support of a theory that a major cosmic was involved, a theory proposed by the scientific team that includes Kennett himself.

Now, in one of the most comprehensive related investigations ever, the group has documented a wide distribution of microspherules widely distributed in a layer over 50 million square kilometers on four continents, including North America, including Arlington Canyon on in the Channel Islands. This layer –– the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) layer –– also contains peak abundances of other , including nanodiamonds and other unusual forms of carbon such as fullerenes, as well as melt-glass and iridium. This new evidence in support of the cosmic appeared recently in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

This cosmic impact, said Kennett, caused major environmental degradation over wide areas through numerous processes that include continent-wide wildfires and a major increase in atmospheric dust load that blocked the sun long enough to cause starvation of larger animals.

These are examples of impact spherules collected from different sites. Credit: YDB Research Group

Investigating 18 sites across North America, Europe and the Middle East, Kennett and 28 colleagues from 24 institutions analyzed the spherules, tiny spheres formed by the high temperature melting of rocks and soils that then cooled or quenched rapidly in the atmosphere. The process results from enormous heat and pressures in blasts generated by the cosmic impact, somewhat similar to those produced during atomic explosions, Kennett explained.

But spherules do not form from cosmic collisions alone. Volcanic activity, lightning strikes, and coal seam fires all can create the tiny spheres. So to differentiate between impact spherules and those formed by other processes, the research team utilized scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectrometry on nearly 700 spherule samples collected from the YDB layer. The YDB layer also corresponds with the end of the Clovis age, and is commonly associated with other features such as an overlying "black mat" –– a thin, dark carbon-rich sedimentary layer –– as well as the youngest known Clovis archeological material and megafaunal remains, and abundant charcoal that indicates massive biomass burning resulting from impact.

The results, according to Kennett, are compelling. Examinations of the YDB spherules revealed that while they are consistent with the type of sediment found on the surface of the earth in their areas at the time of impact, they are geochemically dissimilar from volcanic materials. Tests on their remanent magnetism –– the remaining magnetism after the removal of an electric or magnetic influence –– also demonstrated that the spherules could not have formed naturally during lightning strikes.

"Because requisite formation temperatures for the impact spherules are greater than 2,200 degrees Celsius, this finding precludes all but a high temperature cosmic impact event as a natural formation mechanism for melted silica and other minerals," Kennett explained. Experiments by the group have for the first time demonstrated that silica-rich spherules can also form through high temperature incineration of plants, such as oaks, pines, and reeds, because these are known to contain biologically formed silica.

Additionally, according to the study, the surface textures of these spherules are consistent with high temperatures and high-velocity impacts, and they are often fused to other spherules. An estimated 10 million metric tons of impact spherules were deposited across nine countries in the four continents studied. However, the true breadth of the YDB strewnfield is unknown, indicating an impact of major proportions.

"Based on geochemical measurements and morphological observations, this paper offers compelling evidence to reject alternate hypotheses that YDB spherules formed by volcanic or human activity; from the ongoing natural accumulation of space dust; lightning strikes; or by slow geochemical accumulation in sediments," said Kennett.

"This evidence continues to point to a major as the primary cause for the tragic loss of nearly all of the remarkable American large animals that had survived the stresses of many ice age periods only to be knocked out quite recently by this catastrophic event."

Explore further: New signs of eruption at Iceland volcano

More information: Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1301760110

Related Stories

Study supports theory of extraterrestrial impact

Mar 05, 2012

A 16-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has identified a nearly 13,000-year-old layer of thin, dark sediment buried in the ...

Recommended for you

Aging Africa

19 minutes ago

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

54 minutes ago

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

EU project sails off to study Arctic sea ice

6 hours ago

A one-of-a-kind scientific expedition is currently heading to the Arctic, aboard the South Korean icebreaker Araon. This joint initiative of the US and Korea will measure atmospheric, sea ice and ocean properties with technology ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.6 / 5 (20) May 21, 2013
"This evidence continues to point to a major cosmic impact as the primary cause for the tragic loss of nearly all of the remarkable American large animals that had survived the stresses of many ice age periods only to be knocked out quite recently by this catastrophic event."


So? Where is the (should still be smoking hot) hole? You don't get climate changing bolide impacts w/o creating large smoking holes. There is an 85km diameter crater in the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, it caused NO climate change because it wasn't large enough. It has a sister crater in Russia that is 100km in diameter (they occurred within the errors of measurement of each other, iow, simultaneously).

http://www.lpi.us...-954.pdf
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (20) May 21, 2013
The point being, two (large?) impacts (diameters 85km and 100km) occurring more or less simultaneously did not disrupt the global environment (and only caused localized disruption of the environment).
SteveGinGTO
3.5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2013
Yes, you are right - until a crater is found and vetted, skeptics will be able to cry foul.

Give it time. For Luis Alvarez's dinosaur killer took it about 10 years or so to find an impact site. That could have taken a lot longer, but for an oil company geologist who serendipitously connected some dots. And if - as suspected - this one hit on the Laurentian Ice Sheet, that could complicate things.

At the same time, it is projected as an impact somewhere in the western Ontario area, so that may help. Unfortunately that IS where the LIS was very thick at that time. It may end up being complicated.

People are working on it, even independent scientists with no ax to grind.

This paper should shut some people up, though. I won't name names, though.
SteveGinGTO
2.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
I am a retired mechanical design engineer. When we used to have a part made wrong (fortunately not many - and less since CAD came in). When that would happen a shop guy would look at us like we didn't know jack. After all, how difficult is it to see that part A doesn't fit with part B? The answer is this: When working on a CAD program The simplest thing in the world is to put part A up by part B and see if they fit or not. A monkey can do that. The hard part is getting all the stuff right when it is not physical yet, when it is just on the computer screen (or long ago on a vellum drawing).

Does geology work that way, too? Does it take a crater itself to convince some people? We all know the scientists can read the lab results and they know what each one means. Only the real dense monkey ones need the crater, too - like fitting a square peg in a square hole.

Does the crater also have to have a neon sign saying "YDB"?
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (17) May 21, 2013
Steve the MDE,

I have been following the Holocene Working Group since their inception. My own biases lead me to want to support up to several bolide impacts over the last 12000 years. However, every bit of evidence (so far) has been dashed to bits when subjected to deeper scrutiny.

If there were a climate changing impact there would be a smoking hole. No question about it.

12000 years is not a long time (is far too short a time) to erode, fill a crater with loess, or bury it's remains under several kilometers of sediment (like Chicxulub or Chesapeake Bay).

The Ice Sheet may have been as much as 2km thick. But a bolide that doesn't penetrate the ice doesn't create silica spheroids. A bolide that doesn't penetrate the ice, doesn't cause climate change.

The Canadian Shield isn't exactly hidden from view. In fact many impact craters are visible, though all of them are highly eroded and far too old to be of any use in this discussion.

packrat
2.9 / 5 (13) May 21, 2013
Why does it have to be one big impact? Couldn't it have been a bunch of smaller ones all coming from the same source? Some big asteroid that broke up or exploded into large chunks when it hit the atmosphere and then the bits landed all over the continent?
SteveGinGTO
3 / 5 (9) May 21, 2013
Shootist: Read the full paper. it speaks louder than anything I could say. If you've been following this for all that time you have to have more of an opinion than "Show me the crater."

Note that the paper references the same Chesapeake impact that you mentioned. It has a tektite field of 42 million square km, second largest in the world so far found, so even though I have not read up on that impact, and just because evidence has not been found yet,I would suggest that there were very widespread effects.

If the impact was on the southern part of the ice sheet as suspected, I would think it hit on less than 2 km of ice. But that is just a guess on my part.

Yes, the Canadian shield is one of the best preservers of impacts. Keep your ear to the ground - someone will find the crater.

Again, read the paper. Every question brought up by the skeptics is addressed and answered. Skeptics are good for one thing: They keep the proponents from being sloppy..
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (13) May 21, 2013
Steve,

More data than the paper has.

http://theepistle...20Theory
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (7) May 22, 2013
Sorry, no. This is unproductive ground, to the extent that no one will even read the published papers anymore:

"Requiem for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis? This is the strong conclusion of a new paper in the Earth Science Reviews by Pinter et al (via Scribd)."

"This paper is unlikely to the very last word on the subject, but it is likely to be the last time the mainstream paleo-climatologists are going to pay this much heed unless some really big new piece of evidence comes to light."

[ http://www.realcl...othesis/ ]

Needless to say, this is not "some really big new piece of evidence".

It is also nice to see how Tankersley returns to his crackpot behavior. 2 (!) press releases, an earlier movie about a controversial thesis, and now a new movie. But not any new science, just repeating the old.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (7) May 22, 2013
@SGG: This is unproductive ground, so I doubt "independent scientists" care, and you don't have any to show.

And why would people "shut up", or be dependent on a crater? As per my earlier comment, no one in major areas care anymore. If there were something here, and remember that only one mass extinction out of very many (and one of the Big 5 to boot, so lots of constraints found) has ever been tied to an impact, it should have been fruitful work before now and it needs to end up with extraordinary evidence. That was what happened with the K-Pg impactor.

Here they have found insect droppings and identified it as impact spherules IIRC! Not saying the evidence is all like that, but: "The YD impact hypothesis provides a cautionary tale for researchers, the scientific community, the press, and the broader public."

I would heed the caution mentioned, nothing hurts like jumping on a crackpot bandwagon that is heading for a precipice.
PPihkala
1.8 / 5 (8) May 22, 2013
This article says that they have eliminated other ways that could have formed this black mat of burned matter over extended area. So unless somebody can propose other better fitting source for it, Occams razor tells us that impact is currently the best explanation. And being so, it makes it more important for us to keep checking the sky for more impactors.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (16) May 22, 2013
Funny (ironic) Every comment I made above is supported by peer review articles published by leading planetary scientists and astrophysicists regarding potential YD impactors.

Yet, I am downvoted to "one" on every single comment.

Well, as Galileo said, "and yet, it moves". Or, perhaps more appropriately, "I've never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him".
scoutonymous
1.4 / 5 (9) May 22, 2013
A year or two ago, Prescott Rawlings published the book Atlantis, the Great Flood and the Asteroid, which gives a long list of the evidence which points to this conclusion.
Urgelt
2.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2013
Missing crater... missing crater... Hmm.

It ought to be a very large one, yes? Obvious?

But there aren't any thus far identified, and it hasn't been long enough to fully erode one...

So. Years ago I was an instructor at a YMCA camp, a summer job. I taught kids to shoot bows and .22 caliber rifles, among other things. Once in a while, grading a paper target after it had shot with a .22 was a wee bit difficult, owing to the fact that a bullet *can* - but doesn't often - hit the hole made by a previous bullet.

I wonder if that's what happened here... a big strike dead center on an old, big crater, perhaps Hudson Bay, which then lay under a couple kilometers of ice?
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (15) May 22, 2013
Urgelt

The Bouguer Anomaly of a young impact crater would stand out like a sore thumb. There isn't one.

Oh and Hudson Bay is most certainly NOT an impact crater (though it is surrounded by many).
mnykolay
3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2013
It's seems possible even thou it was probably a combination of human hunting, collision and eruptions after. You can't blame one thing for everything.
Argiod
1.7 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
In my youth we had a standard literary convention: when a term is first used, it is defined.
Not like today's writings, where things like YDB layer are defined upon first usage in a work, so those who want to learn can understand what the **** you are talking about, without having to stop mid-thought and look it up. It's a basic courtesy. These days, it would seem that technical people don't write for anyone but their piers... the rest of us are treated as though we're not worth communicating with.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
In my youth we had a standard literary convention: when a term is first used, it is defined.
Not like today's writings, where things like YDB layer are defined upon first usage in a work, so those who want to learn can understand what the **** you are talking about, without having to stop mid-thought and look it up. It's a basic courtesy. These days, it would seem that technical people don't write for anyone but their piers... the rest of us are treated as though we're not worth communicating with.


That would be peers, not piers, unless you are concerned with publishing science for the education of harbourfront infrastructure.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
In my youth we had a standard literary convention: when a term is first used, it is defined.
Not like today's writings, where things like YDB layer are defined upon first usage in a work, so those who want to learn can understand what the **** you are talking about, without having to stop mid-thought and look it up. It's a basic courtesy. These days, it would seem that technical people don't write for anyone but their piers... the rest of us are treated as though we're not worth communicating with.


That would be peers, not piers, unless you are concerned with publishing science for the education of harbourfront infrastructure.


Or CNN celebrities...
scoutonymous
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
Prescott Rawlings' book Atlantis, the Great Flood and the Asteroid notes that there is a large double crater under the Atlantic off the southeast coast of the U.S.; but also that much of the asteroid split off upon transverse entry into the atmosphere, which caused what are known as the Carolina Bays. There are more than half a million of them, concentrated in the American Southeast but scattered all over North America, all the way up to Alaska. He also discusses in detail its effects, such as the mass extinction event which killed off half of the 70 odd large animal species in North America all at the same time; the diminution in the size of the surviving species; and the demonstrable major shift of the earth on its axis, along with the effects on the global tectonic plates; as well as lots more. He pins down the date with a variety of evidence to a slightly more exact 12,900 BP.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (9) May 25, 2013
@scoutonymous

All the Carolina Bays that have been tested date to ~35000 years ago. They are most likely aeolian in nature.

R_R
1.4 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
The 500 km wide craters are so obvious its painful to watch this sad ass con job debate inch along. The next big rock is going to smack us back to the dark ages long before "they" even agree to have a future meeting to set a meeting to decide if theyll spend a few dollars to convene a conference on deciding if an expedition should be orginized to investigate these craters.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
PS if the USGS is situated in Chicago, tell them to look out thier frigin window
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2013
The 500 km wide craters are so obvious its painful to watch this sad ass con job debate inch along. The next big rock is going to smack us back to the dark ages long before "they" even agree to have a future meeting to set a meeting to decide if theyll spend a few dollars to convene a conference on deciding if an expedition should be orginized to investigate these craters.


What 500km diameter crater?

No shatter cones in Lake Michigan. No planar deformation fractures. No melt sheet. The lack of these definitely mean no impact crater.
R_R
1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
No Shootist the only definitive thing is your mind is closed, an education system success
R_R
1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
PS For those who think for themselves, the northern part of this 12500 year old horse shoe crater took the greatest heat blast from this massive air burst impacter. It melted rock which flowed like cake batter and then solidified into magnificent tapestries. Google "images" - geology of Georgian Bay - and believe your own eyes!
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 26, 2013
where things like YDB layer are defined upon first usage in a work, so those who want to learn can understand what the **** you are talking about

And these days you have a right-click menu which includes a "google for..." option.
If you still have a problem then you have to ask yourself: "How lazy
have I gotten that a right-click has become too much effort for me?"
Shootist
3.3 / 5 (14) May 26, 2013
No Shootist the only definitive thing is your mind is closed, an education system success


Most times when charlatans claim "impact crater" there is a hole in the ground. You don't even have that.

No gravity anomalies. No shocked quartz. No evidence whatsoever. Nothing.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
gravity anomalies

Gravity anomalies? WTF is a 'gravity anomaly' supposed to be?
And why would you execpt one near a crater (do you even know how to look for gravity differentials and what the state of the art in the field is?)

Do you have any clue what you're talking about (Hint: the answer starts with 'no' )
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (8) May 26, 2013
gravity anomalies

Gravity anomalies? WTF is a 'gravity anomaly' supposed to be?
And why would you execpt one near a crater (do you even know how to look for gravity differentials and what the state of the art in the field is?)

Do you have any clue what you're talking about (Hint: the answer starts with 'no' )
"Three-dimensional Bouguer gravity anomaly map over the Chicxulub crater"

Gravity anomalies indicate the presence of metal debris from impacts.

ALL YOU HAD TO DO was google it and LEARN something.
How lazy
have I gotten
Pretty_Freeking_Lazy.
Shootist
3.1 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
An impact primer for antialias (and anyone else that is interested).

http://www.lpi.us...-954.pdf

Gravity anomalies indicate both missing mass, from a crater due to excavation by the bolide, and mass concentrations (Google: MASCON) due to mantle uplift.

Kisses to all the haters.
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (10) May 26, 2013
gravity anomalies

Gravity anomalies? WTF is a 'gravity anomaly' supposed to be?


Here ya go, chucklehead. You should be able to find a .kml (for Google Earth) of gravity anomalies here.

http://rocksfroma...les.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
An impact primer for antialias (and anyone else that is interested).

http://www.lpi.us...-954.pdf

Gravity anomalies indicate both missing mass, from a crater due to excavation by the bolide, and mass concentrations (Google: MASCON) due to mantle uplift.

Kisses to all the haters.


Pseudoscience garbage!
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2013
R_R, please address the fact your earth rotation stopping and reversal and axis shifting impact roughly 12,000 years ago would of driven all advanced life on the planet extinct and most likely all but the toughest extremophiles.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
PS For those who think for themselves, the northern part of this 12500 year old horse shoe crater took the greatest heat blast from this massive air burst impacter. It melted rock which flowed like cake batter and then solidified into magnificent tapestries. Google "images" - geology of Georgian Bay - and believe your own eyes!


It is wonderful that you have an interest in such esoterica. You really should finish that class in Geology 101, however.
R_R
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2013
Shootist "Most times when charlatans claim "impact crater" there is a hole in the ground. You don't even have that."

What do you call Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay - Mountains? They are a perfect replica of known horseshoe craters where the impacter comes in at a low angle like a plane landing.

Shootist "No gravity anomalies. No shocked quartz. No evidence whatsoever. Nothing."

I've got the "michigan basin" just to start, a massive bowl formation where the land has been smashed down and buckled up on the edges perfectly cradling this horse shoe crater.

Shootist "It is wonderful that you have an interest in such esoterica. You really should finish that class in Geology 101, however."

The reason I saw the light is I didnt take Brainwashing 101 as you obviously did, top of your class no doult. I started with no preconceived geologic nonsense burned into my being. I followed the evidence. You should contact your school and demand your money back.

R_R
1.1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2013
Dark "please address the fact your earth rotation stopping and reversal and axis shifting impact roughly 12,000 years ago would of driven all advanced life on the planet extinct "

Says you, but your mistaken. The Ice Age extinction event shows it was very bad day though. For instance over 20 species of elephant before and now just two.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
R-R you are not claiming that the Great Lakes Basin is a result of an impact, are you?

Uh huh. The moon is made of Cheshire cheese as well.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2013
Shootist , I never said Great Lakes Basin, play your preschool word games elsewhere
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
The Ice Age extinction event shows it was very bad day though. For instance over 20 species of elephant before and now just two.


It wasn't a bad day if they were isolated from humans by being on islands. Which seems to me the only proof you need it was humans.

"Evidence supporting the prehistoric overkill hypothesis includes the persistence of certain island megafauna for several millennia past the disappearance of their continental cousins.

Ground sloths survived on the Antilles long after North and South American ground sloths were extinct. The later disappearance of the island species correlates with the later colonization of these islands by humans.

Similarly, woolly mammoths died out on remote Wrangel Island 7000 years after their mainland extinction.

Steller's sea cows also persisted off the isolated and uninhabited Commander Islands for thousands of years after they vanished from continental shores of the north Pacific."

R_R
1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
NotParker, that is an interesting twist I have not heard. The only part I am familiar with is the wrangel island mammoths. I would suggest it is impossible for anyone to say with certainty how long these mammoths survived after the "ice age" or if they did at all because no one was there to witness. It just depends on how much faith one puts in dating technics. My belief is these mammoths did not survive the proposed impacts of 12500 years ago.

Nuclear scientist Richard Firestone of Berkley Labs has shown that large impacts could greatly alter C14 type dating results of anything exposed to the atmospheric changes that would occur. Perhaps these animals were exposed.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2013
Dark "please address the fact your earth rotation stopping and reversal and axis shifting impact roughly 12,000 years ago would of driven all advanced life on the planet extinct "

Says you, but your mistaken. The Ice Age extinction event shows it was very bad day though. For instance over 20 species of elephant before and now just two.

If what you claimed had happened we'd have 0 and wouldn't be around to notice anyway.
R_R
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2013
OK Dark thanks, not sure what your missing and dont really care. I am here to reach open minds and let them know a scum bag establishment has actively been suppressing the truth for over 50 years. Thankfully as the article above shows a small group of true scientists are not going to give up on the truth no matter how many road blocks are put up. Cheers to them
jsdarkdestruction
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2013
OK Dark thanks, not sure what your missing and dont really care. I am here to reach open minds and let them know a scum bag establishment has actively been suppressing the truth for over 50 years. Thankfully as the article above shows a small group of true scientists are not going to give up on the truth no matter how many road blocks are put up. Cheers to them

It's not what im missing, its what you are missing, an ability to semi- comprehend the true scale of destruction had the earth stopped rotating and reversed direction. the earth would be a molten sea of lava.
Oh yes, its all a conspiracy by "them" to hold you down and keep the truth from coming out, of course.
I've got an open mind. I'm undecided on the impact theory presented here personally.

Keep an open mind, but not so much your brain falls out.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Dark, if this planet stopped rotation at a very very slow rate, you wouldnt even notice !!! (except for the change in the suns movements), thats why your total destruction scenario is completely bogus, you dont take into account rate of change. But your ego would never admit to a flaw in your logic, thats what your missing.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Dark, if this planet stopped rotation at a very very slow rate, you wouldnt even notice !!! (except for the change in the suns movements), thats why your total destruction scenario is completely bogus, you dont take into account rate of change. But your ego would never admit to a flaw in your logic, thats what your missing.


Charlatan, over excited amateur, or fool?

It is obvious it knows nothing of physics, geology or paleontology. Even rank amateurs show some knowledge within their area of interest.

NotParker
2.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2013
NotParker, that is an interesting twist I have not heard. The only part I am familiar with is the wrangel island mammoths. I would suggest it is impossible for anyone to say with certainty how long these mammoths survived after the "ice age" or if they did at all because no one was there to witness. It just depends on how much faith one puts in dating technics. My belief is these mammoths did not survive the proposed impacts of 12500 years ago.

Nuclear scientist Richard Firestone of Berkley Labs has shown that large impacts could greatly alter C14 type dating results of anything exposed to the atmospheric changes that would occur. Perhaps these animals were exposed.


How were living mammoths exposed 9,000 years after the event?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2013
Dark, if this planet stopped rotation at a very very slow rate, you wouldnt even notice !!! (except for the change in the suns movements), thats why your total destruction scenario is completely bogus, you dont take into account rate of change. But your ego would never admit to a flaw in your logic, thats what your missing.

if you can show me your math of how the planet could survive the energies involved in the condition you claim I will gladly admit im wrong and then i'll start the push to get you the nobel prize you'd deserve. I'm not holding my breath as you cant even comprehend the massive energy behind the rotation and the effect stopping and reversing it would have.
R_R
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2013
Dark, I can tell you exactly what hapened -Direct from the eye witnesses- done my part in spades, you figure out the math and I'll share the nobel price with you..
R_R
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
NotParker, it is possible these mammoths died 10500 bc due to impacts but thier bones C14 dated to 3000 bc. See Dr Firestones work to understand the mechanics of this, I probably could not explain it properly but it has to do with atmospheric changes.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (9) May 27, 2013
NotParker, it is possible these mammoths died 10500 bc due to impacts but thier bones C14 dated to 3000 bc. See Dr Firestones work to understand the mechanics of this, I probably could not explain it properly but it has to do with atmospheric changes.


Not a chance.
R_R
1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2013
NotParker, so you are so much smarter then a doctor of nucleur science from Berkley Labs that you dont even have to review his findings before you disgard them?

Not A Chance
Shootist
2.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
dog with a bone.

Crackpot Impact Theory
http://theepistle...20Theory
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (11) May 29, 2013
Thank you, R_R, for bringing Shootist, NotParker and myself together, if only briefly, in the spirit of well deserved scorn for your giant impact 'theories' for everything. :)
Shootist
2 / 5 (9) May 30, 2013
Thank you, R_R, for bringing Shootist, NotParker and myself together, if only briefly, in the spirit of well deserved scorn for your giant impact 'theories' for everything. :)


Heh.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2013
Thank you, R_R, for bringing Shootist, NotParker and myself together, if only briefly, in the spirit of well deserved scorn for your giant impact 'theories' for everything. :)


Lol!