Clovis Comet & North American Mass Extinction

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by John L, Jun 8, 2008.

  1. John L Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Surprising enough, nobody has brought up the latest theory for the mass extinction of mega-fauna in North America at the end of the last ice age, and the cause for the Younger Dryas. What I am talking about is the latest evidence leading to the theory, which is still theory, that a comet Impactor exploded in the upper atmosphere, causing the end of Clovis culture, and a large portion of fauna on the North American Continent.

    In order to stimulate discussion on this interesting topic, I will post what I have recently written at Ai-Jane.org. I know that we all have our own idea as to what is vitally important to this planet and humans, but the thought of millions, even billions, of humans dying off immediately as a result of a large comet, or asteroid, leaves me very unsettled. In fact, this dwarfs the 'so called' thread of a warming planet, so much so that to be worried about the later, at the expense of the former, seems to be intellectual laziness 'par excellence'

    --------------------------------------------------------

    For many years now, the mystery of the vanishing fauna in post Pleistocene North America, has stumped paleontologists. How did so many species suddenly disappear. And this ranges from the giant bison, ground sloth, dire bear, smilidon, North American horse, mammoth, and many others.

    Theories have ranged from viruses to human interaction, to haitat change. Yet none of them have really been carried the day, as all have been a real stretch of imagination. As a graduate student I have always believed that there had to be something other than invading humans responsible, because the diversity of extinctions and their suddenness just did not add up.

    Now there is a new theory out, and it does not rely upon any of the above causes. This one is celestial in nature, and is currently under close scrutiny. It's also a new theory, having just been raised in 2007, so it will be disputed for years to come. But it makes sense, just as mass extinctions in the past, have almost all been the result of celestial Impactors as well.

    As an anthropologist, I find this spellbinding, because the implications are Huge. The prospect of random Impactors, capable of causing such disruption, adds to the threat of cyclical Inpactors which can cause even more damage and extinction rates. In other words, the longer we continue to keep all of our eggs in one single basket, the greater the odds that we too will be made extinct by some Impactor in the future.


    For a more detailed and close examination of the theory, you can read more here: THE CLOVIS COMET Part I: Evidence for a Cosmic Collision 12,900 Years Ago

    About Comets vs Asteroids

    The thing that leaves me scratching my head is the frequency with which commentators, and even scientists use "asteroids" and "comets" so interchangably. There is a big difference, and an impact by one will not be akin to that of another.

    Usually, the 'so called' experts will tell everyone that the dinosaurs were killed off 65 million years ago, by a huge asteroid. But the odds of that are very small, and a comet is a 90% certainty. Comets streak around the solar system at two to three times the velocity of asteroids. This means that the kenetic energy of a comet is far greater, and the time from atmosphere to impact will be much less, even coming in at a 30 degree angle, which is what the dinosaur killer most likely entered the atmosphere.

    Also, comets are almost always much bigger than asteroids. Some of them are simply Huge, and if they were to Impact the earth, they would do far more damage than the 6 mile comet that struck 65 million years ago.

    But the theory here of an air burst leads me to think that this may have been an asteroid, or a very loose, and small comet. It's hard to tell, but I have not read about any evidence of iridium as of yet. Comets will give off more iridium debris, so we shall have to wait and see what the debris layer shows on this.

    But I am fairly certain that an Impactor is the reason for the mass extinction of certain fauna in North America . As a matter of fact, it is starting to look like ALL mass extinctions are the result of celestial intervention. This is why I am amazed with the Eco-Wackos's hysteria about something as benign as global warming, and totally oblivious to the REAL DANGER, which lies out in the Ort Cloud and Kuiper Belt. All it takes is for one of these Impactors to give us a personal visit, and we are Truely Screwed, Blued, and tatooed.

    Here are a couple more schollarly publications on the topic.

    Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling

    Younger Dryas "black mats" and the Rancholabrean termination in North America, by C. Vance Haynes, Jr*
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Read more
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Read less
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    >>Read less

    Well, i thought it was funny.
    i don't know too much about it, but even i can figure out that the deposits as related to glacial activity.
     
  8. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    “For several months following the comet strike, the skies rained precious stone and metals, the researchers speculate. Diamonds drizzled down by the tons.“

    Source
     
  9. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, you misunderstood.
    Orleander is just stating her personal life philosophy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The full version is: "Read less, ask more".
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Mmmmm.... maybe 2012 AD seems more plausible... ask me if you want to know why...
     
  11. olomana Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    The comet may have been responsible for much more than the extinctions mentioned. The Laurentide ice sheet was several miles thick and covered a vast area of North America. An airburst of this magnitude could have melted hundreds of cubic miles of ice more or less instantly. In the process, it would have vaporized cubic miles of melt water super-saturating the Earth’s atmosphere. The ice sheet was thousands of feet in height. The out-rush of water from the former ice sheet would have created a mega flash flood of vast height and proportion. In many areas it could have been well over a thousand feet in height and hundreds of miles wide. As the mega flood rushed from the Colorado Plateau to the Gulf of Mexico, it would have carved out hundreds of miles of landscape on an unbelievable scale. This could account for many of the spectacular canyons, mesas and other land formations now visible in the American Southwest.
    As hundreds of cubic miles of water reached the Gulf of Mexico, it would have caused sea levels to rise hundreds of feet world wide. For those who entertain such ideas, this could also account for Plato’s legend of Atlantis. Plato wrote that Atlantis sunk into the sea during a day and a night of unbelievably torrential rainfall. What might have actually happened was that the super saturated atmosphere released it’s water vapor within a very short time span creating unprecedented epic level rainfall around the globe. As global sea levels suddenly rose, the survivors of Atlantis would have been unable to distinguish this from their island sinking into the sea.
    Mega event theories have, until the last few years, been viewed with disdain by the scientific community. Now, however, many such mega events have come to light such as the Montana scablands mega flood, the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea the super volcano about 70,000 years ago that wiped out about 99% of the human gene pool and many others.
    We now know that the slow and gradual processes, that we previously thought shaped the Earth alone, have been punctuated again and again by many mega events of unimaginable proportions.
     
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Both are serious problems. Both could destroy not only civilisation, but - at the extreme end of the spectrums - all life on Earth. Trying to compare the two, which are so different in character, is an exercise in futility, an unwelcome distraction, and might even be characterised as intellectual presumptuousness par excellence. Let's just agree it is a serious issue and move on.
    No they haven't. You have been watching the Discovery channel too much rather than reading the literature. OK, thats a cheap shot, but really, consider the data.

    Holocene Event ........ That one is down to us.
    KT Boundary ............ An impactor is strongly implicated, but its central role as the primary cause is still disputed.
    Triassic/Jurassic....... No impactor.
    End Permian........... Cause unknown, but probably related to land distribution and possibly H2S release. No impactor.
    Late Devonian....... No Impact evidence.
    Ordovician....... No impact evidence.

    Only one of the six major extinction event is closely tied to an impactor.
    Please cite a single instance in which a scientist has used the terms interchangeably. Note that for some impacts we do not know which was responsible, comet or asteroid. For these situations the general term bolide is preferred.
    I agree this is true by a couple of orders of magnitude, but there are still some big asteroids out there, fortunately in stable orbits. A hit by Ceres would be embarassing.

    You seem to be confusing fashion with facts, the opinions of scientists with the findings of science.
    I'm sorry, I should have read the whole thread before I started my reply. I didn't realise you had an agenda.
     
  13. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    For real? Gulf of Mexico crater debunked?
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico is the KT(Cretaceous-Tertiary) boundary event. The crater is very real, it undoubtedly led to extensive extinction, but whether it was the primary cause remains the subject of debate.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Why do you say that? The settling of the Western Hemisphere was a unique event in human history.

    Humans originally evolved in Africa. All of the advances in our hunting technology occurred with agonizing slowness, and the prey species had plenty of time to react to them and evolve new instincts and behaviors.

    Humans migrated to Asia fifty or sixty thousand years ago, when we were still limited to Paleolithic technology: even clothing was a recent invention. We fanned out very slowly across the new continents, and once again the animals had a chance to adapt their behavior to the risk our presence posed.

    Even Europe: 25,000 years ago. Still the Paleolithic. Neanderthals were already there, but given that we quickly outcompeted them to extinction, they presumably did not have high technology. Homo sapiens spread very slowly across Europe, following the receding glaciers. We can be classified as simply one component in the changing ecosystem. The only animals who were able to make the migration with us and define the new post-glacial ecosystem were the ones who were able to survive in a hostile environment full of hungry humans with spears and clever hunting strategies.

    Humans came to the Americas only 13,000 years ago, with more sophisticated technology than their ancestors had, including the complex language that was one of their most effective tools for organization. Didn't humans spread rapidly, covering the entire New World in less than a millennium? Those animals didn't know what hit them.
     
  16. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    No, Humans were present in America a lot earlier. Mitochondrial DNA research suggests about 30,000 years. I'll link later

    But the most compelling evidence literally is a piece of s***

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;320/5877/786

    Note that carbon dates need calibration using the INTCAL04 table

    12,300 radiocarbon years ago is about 14,150 Calendar years ago.
     
  17. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    And that's with searching the high country. During the ice-age, the sea shore areas where people would have inhabited the most were some 100 meters lower, and are now flooded, making their s--- undetectable! So when does underwater archaeology begin exploring those old sea-shore areas?
     
  18. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    False. New finds have humans coming much earlier than that.
     
  19. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    No real surprise there; the forum he linked to is a notorious right wing haven. The biggest asshole I've ever encountered on line used to frequently post there.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    We've got this same discussion going on in another thread. Of course there have always been adventurers, and there's clear evidence that bands of humans managed to explore the New World long before the Paleoindians settled here. But there's no convincing evidence that they established communities that survived and contributed in any meaningful way to either the DNA or the culture of the people we regard as the aboriginal Americans. People came, traveled around, lived off the land, and some of them may have managed to have children who grew up and had children of their own. But at some point the colonies failed and died off. The new generation of research technology has facilitated an enormous amount of DNA analysis in just the last couple of years. The rather ample population samples of New World ethnic groups tested consistently show that they are descended from a couple of waves of migrants whose relatives stayed behind in Siberia, and they've even located the descendants of those relatives who are still in Siberia. Links to the material were posted in the "Out of Africa" thread some months back.
     
  21. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I guess we'll see what studying the new Mexican skeletons brings to light.
     
  22. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    You may be unaware of the considerable evidence and study on the settlement of NA that disproves the 'land bridge', and the history of a Clovis point technology from Europe. Via the Solutreans. Bear in mind this is not the work of some crackpots looking to garner attention, but of a Smithsonian Archaeologist Dennis Stanford and colleague Bruce Bradley in 2002. The dig at Cactus Hill alone certainly opens some questions up some valid questions.

    There are question about is, and those that criticize the work. But there are always many critics of new theories, for many reasons including simple human ego.

    The classical 'land bridge' approach, north to south, west to east, while being tried and true as far as academia goes,(which means if you actually want to get published and move ahead in academia you better stay with the program), is full of holes and research done in the last five years continues to poke more holes in it.

    From the digs and dating in western Mexico and South America. To the new examination of the European source of Clovis technology.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    So why don't you fix that and post a URL. Better yet, use the book report skills they forced us all to learn in grade school and post a brief abstract for us.
    I read the Wikipedia article and it appears to be good science and in accordance with the Rule of Laplace we are obliged to treat it with respect. But this short writeup leaves it with a lot of very difficult unanswered questions.
    The reason most new theories are criticized is that they violate the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. This is what identifies the crackpot: He does not see his hypothesis as extraordinary because he has been living with it for so long and it may even be consuming him and defining his life.
    The "water bridge" hypothesis has been proposed and it works just as well. The people in many Mesolithic East Asian societies were amazingly skillful sailors, and working in their favor was the phenomenon of shorter distances to navigate in an ice age due to lower sea levels and wider land masses. The Paleoindians could just as easily have sailed over.
    I found the remarks on DNA most interesting. The relationship between the indigenous Americans and the modern remnants of a Siberian tribe is too close to gainsay. But perhaps there was a substratum of European DNA and culture that has left its telltales in both the biological and archeological record.
     

Share This Page