A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:20 pm

http://geologytimes.com/tag/younger-dryas-boundary/
"...Around 12,800 years ago, a sudden, catastrophic event plunged much of the Earth into a period of cold climatic conditions and drought. This drastic climate change-the Younger Dryas-coincided with the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, such as the saber-tooth cats and the mastodon, and resulted in major declines in prehistoric human populations...",

"...a study published in The Journal of Geology, an international group of scientists analyzing existing and new evidence have determined a cosmic impact event...to be the only plausible hypothesis to explain all the unusual occurrences at the onset of the Younger Dryas period..."

"...Researchers from 21 universities in 6 countries believe the key to the mystery of the Big Freeze lies in nanodiamonds scattered across Europe, North America, and portions of South America, in a 50-million-square-kilometer area known as the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) field..."

"...Microscopic nanodiamonds, melt-glass, carbon spherules, and other high-temperature materials are found in abundance throughout the YDB field, in a thin layer located only meters from the Earth’s surface. Because these materials formed at temperatures in excess of 2200 degrees Celsius, the fact they are present together so near to the surface suggests they were likely created by a MAJOR extraterrestrial impact event...."

[...yes, extremely major! ;-]
[...and, how much do you want to bet that?, absolutely zero amount of impact spherules, from this impact, lay anywhere beneath the floor of the Atlantic ocean...]


["...just nod if you can hear me..."!]
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:43 am

Tom -

Would you please go over and bother Steve Garcia and Dennis Cox with your stunning "discoveries"?

As far as impactites goes, they are not fairy dust, and simply disappear.
Those from the 10,850 BCE event were dispersed globally in faint concentrations.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:16 pm

E.P. Grondine wrote:Tom -

Would you please go over and bother Steve Garcia and Dennis Cox with your stunning "discoveries"?

As far as impactites goes, they are not fairy dust, and simply disappear.
Those from the 10,850 BCE event were dispersed globally in faint concentrations.


cre E.P.-
Though I appreciate much of their work, Garcia seems to be preoccupied with the Clovis problem- https://craterhunter.wordpress.com/2014 ... st-asking/
But the “Clovis came over Beringia” idea is based on PREMATURE conclusions, so common in paleontology and archaeology. Out west they had a FEW evidences of Clovis points in widely dispersed locations, and the first ones were found out West, and they had already decided that the first Americans had come over the land bridge, so they simply mooshed the two ideas together,...It was a simple random – and VERY misleading – chance occurrence that that first Clovis point was found near Clovis, NM, instead of in, say, Kentucky. If that point had been found in the East somewhere, the bulk of the 20th century would not have been wasted on that stupid, STUPID premature conclusion.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Solutrean-industry
The origin of the Solutrean stoneworking technique is in some dispute. Most of the evidence indicates it was an invention indigenous to the Dordogne region of France, but some scholars attribute its swift appearance to the arrival of a new people and its equally swift disappearance to destruction of the Solutrean people by another group arriving with a different tool industry. The Solutrean follows the Perigordian and Aurignacian industries and is succeeded by the Magdalenian.
and, even though I do agree with Cox on an impact for the YDB, he, apparently wants to believe that lightning and wind eddies can somehow form many thousands of perfectly elliptical impressions, going all in the same direction up and down a coastline and last for thousands of years in an area subject to excessive erosion- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/science- ... =prof-post
Thaddeus Gutierrez
Fulguritics; geoarchaeological 14C reservoir/depletion modeling; dynamic semi-parametric…

Carolina bays yield many mutually exclusive radiocarbon dates, all of which are many thousands of years older than any 19th c. associationist anecdote can account for, with phases of formation during key glaciation and deglaciation phases of extreme convection differentials. Their origin is aeolian, and their common orientation reflects prevailing wind, with investigators verification biased, ignoring the dune structures that accompany such structures, with aquifer recharge and depletion cycles affecting their entrenchment. Ponding of this form is ubiquitous in many parts of the world and can be positively correlated to high winds, heavy saturation of loessoid sediments, and freezing. All such formations share a long axis with major winds affecting them during their accretion, and shifts in prevailing wind are indexed by their plan contours. Fusion evidence found in and near their sediments is identical to material formed by lightning discharge into wet, fine-grained and humic mediums.
-that's Dennis that hit the "like" on this comment- https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennis-cox- ... nnis%20Cox -and happens to be one of my colleagues on Linkedin. We have had several discussions, agreements and a few disagreements, and he also understands that the younger dryas was brought on by a massive impact...

I'm not saying the impactites disappeared, I am saying that the Atlantic ocean did not exist until approx.13kya, was known as Atlas, as it surrounded the entire globe, but for the supercontinent of Pangaea, [...the land mass all on one side...the cause of the imbalance that allowed for the Moon to impact...] which was broken apart, when the Moon impacted where the Mediterranean sea is, and split Atlas to form the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...

Image
...and, though I know we have gone over much of this, have you not noticed?- there are no samples taken from the ocean floors, that are suppose to be from the YDB... [it is my belief there are none, because it was covered by the north and south American plate...]

...please understand- there is no possibility that the ejecta blanket would have crossed over such a great distance, as the entire Atlantic ocean, as an impact that catastrophic would have probably split the planet...
...and an airburst from the breakup of a comet, would not have generated enough heat through the atmosphere to produce nanodiamonds at over 22oo*C. It would have had to be an extreme contact impact...
Last edited by Kalopin on Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby circumspice » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:16 pm

Kalopin wrote:Min- It's the only source to give an explanation to every event that occurred...

...feel free to give any other explanation to argue over...
...Is there even any other option [actual mechanism] that has ever been suggested or discussed?,[ concerning the reason for instant mass extinctions, historical accounts of great catastrophic events and the fact that all plants and all animals, all of a sudden, grew much smaller and lived much shorter lives?, as all this has been documented... But, never a reason...]
Do you have a better one?

[...turns out, the crazies, are the ones teaching and learning the current b.s. :-]

...and how and why does everyone let E.P. and his constituents get away with making outlandish assumptions with no rebuttal?
...is there no one to question how a cometary airburst would produce one geological uplift feature and cause all the events and consequences that have been scientifically proven? [now that's what's crazy!]...


To quote a little known but great American philosopher:
Attachments
BugsBunnyMaroon_zps5e1d22dd.jpg
BugsBunnyMaroon_zps5e1d22dd.jpg (116.25 KiB) Viewed 636 times
LUCEO NON URO
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:21 pm

circumspice wrote:
Kalopin wrote:Min- It's the only source to give an explanation to every event that occurred...

...feel free to give any other explanation to argue over...
...Is there even any other option [actual mechanism] that has ever been suggested or discussed?,[ concerning the reason for instant mass extinctions, historical accounts of great catastrophic events and the fact that all plants and all animals, all of a sudden, grew much smaller and lived much shorter lives?, as all this has been documented... But, never a reason...]
Do you have a better one?

[...turns out, the crazies, are the ones teaching and learning the current b.s. :-]

...and how and why does everyone let E.P. and his constituents get away with making outlandish assumptions with no rebuttal?
...is there no one to question how a cometary airburst would produce one geological uplift feature and cause all the events and consequences that have been scientifically proven? [now that's what's crazy!]...


To quote a little known but great American philosopher:

...class clown's not very intelligent... ;-]]]]]]]
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby circumspice » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:34 pm

I'm not saying the impactites disappeared, I am saying that the Atlantic ocean did not exist until approx.13kya, was known as Atlas, as it surrounded the entire globe, but for the supercontinent of Pangaea, [...the land mass all on one side...the cause of the imbalance that allowed for the Moon to impact...] which was broken apart, when the Moon impacted where the Mediterranean sea is, and split Atlas to form the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...


...and, though I know we have gone over much of this, have you not noticed?- there are no samples taken from the ocean floors, that are suppose to be from the YDB... [it is my belief there are none, because it was covered by the north and south American plate...]

...please understand- there is no possibility that the ejecta blanket would have crossed over such a great distance, as the entire Atlantic ocean, as an impact that catastrophic would have probably split the planet...
...and an airburst from the breakup of a comet, would not have generated enough heat through the atmosphere to produce nanodiamonds at over 22oo*C. It would have had to be an extreme contact impact...

Last edited by Kalopin on 01 Oct 2016, 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Kalopin 223 26 Mar 2013, 17:38


And you "know" this... how?

Tell us Tony... What are your credentials? What is your degree? From which institution/s?

What qualifies you to state that noted, educated authorities on the subject are either crazy or liars?

Note: Surfing the internet, copying fragments of articles & posting them on boards does not qualify you to be an authority on the subject.

You have serious mental health issues that you need to address. After that, get an education.

At this point in time you are nothing more than a mentally unstable Chicken Little catastrophist.
LUCEO NON URO
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Minimalist » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:25 pm

Min- It's the only source to give an explanation to every event that occurred...



Pink unicorns with magic wands could explain it, too. And be more believable that your moon nonsense.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15384
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:45 pm

circumspice wrote:
I'm not saying the impactites disappeared, I am saying that the Atlantic ocean did not exist until approx.13kya, was known as Atlas, as it surrounded the entire globe, but for the supercontinent of Pangaea, [...the land mass all on one side...the cause of the imbalance that allowed for the Moon to impact...] which was broken apart, when the Moon impacted where the Mediterranean sea is, and split Atlas to form the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...


...and, though I know we have gone over much of this, have you not noticed?- there are no samples taken from the ocean floors, that are suppose to be from the YDB... [it is my belief there are none, because it was covered by the north and south American plate...]

...please understand- there is no possibility that the ejecta blanket would have crossed over such a great distance, as the entire Atlantic ocean, as an impact that catastrophic would have probably split the planet...
...and an airburst from the breakup of a comet, would not have generated enough heat through the atmosphere to produce nanodiamonds at over 22oo*C. It would have had to be an extreme contact impact...

Last edited by Kalopin on 01 Oct 2016, 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Kalopin 223 26 Mar 2013, 17:38


And you "know" this... how?

Tell us Tony... What are your credentials? What is your degree? From which institution/s?

What qualifies you to state that noted, educated authorities on the subject are either crazy or liars?

Note: Surfing the internet, copying fragments of articles & posting them on boards does not qualify you to be an authority on the subject.

You have serious mental health issues that you need to address. After that, get an education.

At this point in time you are nothing more than a mentally unstable Chicken Little catastrophist.


The simple fact that you, nor anyone can come up with any other option to explain every detail... Do you understand that every aspect, that has been scientifically proven, has to have an explanation?
Do you understand why you are unable to copy and post any form of rebuttal?
...and, if you happen to be able to read, understand, comprehend,... the information being discussed, then you, my friend, will receive an education...
Why don't you go through all my research, determine its accuracy, and come back with something you found that you may be able to argue over. because, [I hate to tell you but], you, yourself, have contributed absolutely squat to this conversation...
[and so, prove my mentals and prove me wrong, 'cause I got about one nerve left and you're on it...;-]

...and, yes, it has already been proven to be a great catastrophe, and so, anyone commenting is, by definition- a catastrophist. If you do not want to discuss catastrophism, [I hate to be the one to tell you,] you're in the wrong place...
Understanding the past correctly, teaching the truth in the present, learning and adjusting for the future,... makes me a futurist [as well...]...
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:07 pm

Minimalist wrote:
Min- It's the only source to give an explanation to every event that occurred...



Pink unicorns with magic wands could explain it, too. And be more believable that your moon nonsense.


...only because you have been subjected to false conclusions derived from faulty impact physics, skewed dating methods...
It really is simple, when you study the satellite views in detail, go thr0ugh all the historical accounts and, then add in all the scientific and observational data...
...feel free to go through all my discussions and all the evidence I have put forth...

What formed Libyan glass?
What produced the nanodiamonds within the impact spherules?
How did the ejecta blanket cover over four continents?
How did the Farallon plate flip over beneath the north and south American plates to form the Rockies and Andes mountain ranges?
How did India get shoved into the Eurasian plate forming the Himalayas?
What ripped apart the mantle to form the Marianna trench?
What formed the mid-Atlantic ridge?...

You see, I can go on and on, as there are so many features that were formed from this impact, that the evidence is overwhelming. Not just the ejecta blanket strewn field, full of impact spherules containing nanodiamonds, but the fact that there are pyramids and temples buried beneath massive amounts of limestone, straight out of the ejecta blanket, that is the "smoking gun"- definite proof for this event!
Yes, once the evidence has been gone through, studied and understood, there will be no doubt- the Moon impacted the Mediterranean sea to end the Pleistocene...
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby circumspice » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:43 pm

Kalopin wrote:
circumspice wrote:
I'm not saying the impactites disappeared, I am saying that the Atlantic ocean did not exist until approx.13kya, was known as Atlas, as it surrounded the entire globe, but for the supercontinent of Pangaea, [...the land mass all on one side...the cause of the imbalance that allowed for the Moon to impact...] which was broken apart, when the Moon impacted where the Mediterranean sea is, and split Atlas to form the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...


...and, though I know we have gone over much of this, have you not noticed?- there are no samples taken from the ocean floors, that are suppose to be from the YDB... [it is my belief there are none, because it was covered by the north and south American plate...]

...please understand- there is no possibility that the ejecta blanket would have crossed over such a great distance, as the entire Atlantic ocean, as an impact that catastrophic would have probably split the planet...
...and an airburst from the breakup of a comet, would not have generated enough heat through the atmosphere to produce nanodiamonds at over 22oo*C. It would have had to be an extreme contact impact...

Last edited by Kalopin on 01 Oct 2016, 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Kalopin 223 26 Mar 2013, 17:38


And you "know" this... how?

Tell us Tony... What are your credentials? What is your degree? From which institution/s?

What qualifies you to state that noted, educated authorities on the subject are either crazy or liars?

Note: Surfing the internet, copying fragments of articles & posting them on boards does not qualify you to be an authority on the subject.

You have serious mental health issues that you need to address. After that, get an education.

At this point in time you are nothing more than a mentally unstable Chicken Little catastrophist.


The simple fact that you, nor anyone can come up with any other option to explain every detail... Do you understand that every aspect, that has been scientifically proven, has to have an explanation?
Do you understand why you are unable to copy and post any form of rebuttal?
...and, if you happen to be able to read, understand, comprehend,... the information being discussed, then you, my friend, will receive an education...
Why don't you go through all my research, determine its accuracy, and come back with something you found that you may be able to argue over. because, [I hate to tell you but], you, yourself, have contributed absolutely squat to this conversation...
[and so, prove my mentals and prove me wrong, 'cause I got about one nerve left and you're on it...;-]

...and, yes, it has already been proven to be a great catastrophe, and so, anyone commenting is, by definition- a catastrophist. If you do not want to discuss catastrophism, [I hate to be the one to tell you,] you're in the wrong place...
Understanding the past correctly, teaching the truth in the present, learning and adjusting for the future,... makes me a futurist [as well...]...


Tony... You evaded the question. What are your credentials? My answer to your demand that I disprove your insane fantasy is for you to read the data put forth by credible, educated experts in all the fields that you have been fouling with your crackpot bullshit wannabe theories. Since you won't answer the question about credentials, it is most probably entirely safe to assume that you have NONE.

Peering at Google Maps & copying other people's work will never prove anything except that you feel compelled to plagiarize the work of educated persons.

Take off your tinfoil hat, crawl out of your bunker & get treatment Tony.
LUCEO NON URO
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:40 am

[...and, there in lies the problem- you assume too much!...]
My answer to your demand that I disprove your insane fantasy is for you to read the data put forth by credible, educated experts in all the fields that you have been fouling with your crackpot bullshit wannabe theories.

oh please, be so kind to do me this favor and find the exhumation process for the Ozark mountain range, or, please explain the formation process for the Appalachian range- Do you really believe that mountains can be slowly piled up over millions of years?

I'll tell you what- let's look at just one anomaly- the devil's mountain- how was it formed?-
https://www.nps.gov/deto/learn/nature/g ... ations.htm
Image
...your "credible, educated experts"? believe-
The Tower is Formed: An Ongoing Debate

Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion (the forcible entry of magma into or between other rock formations) of igneous material. What they cannot agree upon is how that process took place and whether or not the magma reached the land surface.

Numerous ideas have evolved since the official discovery of Devils Tower. Geologists Carpenter and Russell studied Devils Tower in the late 1800s and came to the conclusion that the Tower was indeed formed by an igneous intrusion. Later geologists searched for more detailed explanations.

In 1907, scientists Darton and O'Hara decided that Devils Tower must be an eroded remnant of a laccolith. A laccolith is a large, mushroom–shaped mass of igneous rock which intrudes between the layers of sedimentary rocks but does not reach the surface. This produces a rounded bulge in the sedimentary layers above the intrusion. This idea was quite popular in the early 1900s when numerous studies were done on a number of laccoliths in the Southwest.
Other ideas have suggested that Devils Tower is a volcanic plug or that it is the neck of an extinct volcano. Although there is no evidence of volcanic activity - volcanic ash, lava flows, or volcanic debris - anywhere in the surrounding countryside, it is possible that this material may simply have eroded away.

The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger.

...and, what really gets me is- the rock was crystallized! [abaduhwhat?!;-]
...is this what you believe? [it's weirdfunny that stupid people think I'm stupid, crazy people think I'm crazy,... but intelligent people know I know what the hell I am talking about!]

...as unbelievable as this may sound- this rock fell from the sky out of the ejecta blanket from a massive impact from Earth's moon to where the Mediterranean sea is around 13kya...

...now, all you had to do was go to my other threads on this same forum, here is one- Atlantis- viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3757
...and would save us both a great deal of trouble [and anguish!]
...though I will go over every detail again, just for you Circ. lejerk... :-]]]]]]]

...because what is currently being taught is a joke!

What gets me the most is these few innocent [at first] assumptions have lead a few morons to somehow be able to convince the entire scientific community and the gullible general public to accept such nonsense-
The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.
...and sometimes Occam's razor is not helpful, as the answer is quite complicated...and so, Have you seen devil's tower? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that it was molten as it formed, as the molten rock ran down the sides as it solidified, and it was crystallized, which could no way occur from volcanic rock hardening beneath the surface...and do you really believe that hundreds, if not thousands of acres of land would just erode away over millions of years and leave the one rock?

"...credible?...educated?... :-]]]]]]]

you feel compelled to plagiarize the work of educated persons.
strong accusations, care to explain? what "educated persons" have I "plagiarize"d?
get treatment
...and here is yours...
What are your credentials?
knowledge grasshopper!
[or you can look me up- https://www.linkedin.com/profile/previe ... ary-button ...and please, feel free to go through all the information on this page...
thanks :-]
Image
...judge for yourself...
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:43 am

circumspice wrote:
And you "know" this... how?

Tell us Tony... What are your credentials? What is your degree? From which institution/s?

What qualifies you to state that noted, educated authorities on the subject are either crazy or liars?

Note: Surfing the internet, copying fragments of articles & posting them on boards does not qualify you to be an authority on the subject.

You have serious mental health issues that you need to address. After that, get an education.

At this point in time you are nothing more than a mentally unstable Chicken Little catastrophist.


Yes, spice, you got it.
Now imagine having to deal with several of these people, who are very fixated, and become fixated on you when you attempt to point out to them they're wrong and why they're wrong.
One of the items that marks them out is fundamental ignorance of physics, and on an advanced level its their a\rather complete lack of knowledge of impact blast mechanics.

For that matter, a fundamental ignorance of the scientific method marks them out quite well.
Most come in with an idea fixee, and proceed from there.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Kalopin » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:54 am

sle E.P. [wake up!]
when you attempt to point out to them they're wrong and why they're wrong

...waiting...
complete lack of knowledge of impact blast mechanics.

...it's faulty...
a fundamental ignorance of the scientific method

...and so, please explain "the scientific method" and how it would be different than what I am doing, which is presenting all the evidence and explaining the process...
Kalopin
 

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby Minimalist » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:49 pm

You see, I can go on and on,



Oh, if that is your goal you can stop. You have proven that you can go on and on.

What you haven't proven is that you can make any sense.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15384
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: A Blind Test of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:16 pm

Tony -

Your hypothesis that an impact blast had of set off the New Madrid earthquake pretty much demonstrates
my point about your complete lack of impact blast mechanics.

You remind me of 2012, where people with no knowledge of orbital mechanics, cosmology, nor the Mayan calendar went on and on about exactly how an impact
was going to occur on December 12 of that year.

Someday, I hope that serious impact researchers will be able to set up a hive mind via a public bbs where people such as yourself will not be able to bother research. Like what existed with the Cambridge Conference until 2003.

I do not know what it will take for you to convince yourself you are wrong.
For that matter, your inability to consider that you have made a mistake marks you as completely unqualified for impact research.
You are not helping the field of impact research, but instead simply muddying the waters.

I am once again going to suggest to you a visit to the Fort Mims and the Wetumpka impact museums.
I hope that the moderators here will agree with me.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests