Mississippi Embayment/Bolide Astrobleme

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi nacom -



You can see the 14C spikes, and 2 of them are associated with impacts: just to the right of the 50,000 bp marker ("Meteor" Crater), and at 12,900 bp (HSIE and related craters).

Can somebody find me a better and larger image of the old INTcal98 14C production chart than the one abused by this bunch of nuts?

[uniface]

Min : Could the pot be calling the kettle black ? That is the behavior of ideologues in every area. And they seem to assume that, because they can point to their opponents doing it, they themselves aren't equally guilty of the same thing.

From where I sit, belief is simply belief, no matter what's being believed-in & upheld.

Which is why, IMO, boat-rockers, shit-disturbers and similar mavericks are both interesting and valuable. Applying a litmus test to their positions that determines whether what they say is "supposed to be" taken seriously and mocking them if this shows their allegations are incongruous with the current "truth" is a SURE tipoff.

[E.P. Grondine]

uniface -

The test of any hyothesis is the data.

"belief" and "thought" are two separate mental acts, and neither should be confused with "reality".

Some people are completely detached from "reality", and that presents some problems.
When that behavior persists, words other than "believing" and "thinking" are used to describe it.

[Minimalist]

From where I sit, belief is simply belief, no matter what's being believed-in & upheld.

Belief without evidence is merely silly. All religions are founded on belief for a reason.

[Nacon]

Until such time, you may wish to (again) thoroughly study the previously supplied references.

I'm going to guess "No" on that one.

Sadly, this could well be the case.

.

[Nacon]

Hi nacom -



You can see the 145C spikes, and 2 of them are associated with impacts: just to the right of the 50,000 bp marker ("Meteor" Crater), and at 12,900 bp (HSIE and related craters).

Can somebody find me a better and larger image of the old INTcal98 14C production chart than the one abused by this bunch of nuts?

Hi E.P.,

Am unsure as to the source of the above figure. It is not from INTCAL 98. Also question the 14C data. The following will allow you to download the INTCAL 98 PDF. Should you have difficulties, can PM you the PDF.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /3781/3206

However, you may be better served by the updated INTCAL 09. See below. Can also forward the PDF of this one if desired. Am expecting another update in the relatively near future once the Suigetsu data has been analyzed and incorporated.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /3781/3206

.

[Nacon]

"Kalopin"

Study up on stratigraphy and see, all the 'credible documentation to support' is readily viewable on any satellite!

Listen- you get this site analyzed and if I am wrong, I will apologize to you. If I am correct, what will you say? :? Until you can find one little 'shred' of something to argue against an impact scenario, you have no 'platform' to stand on! So 'address' on! You will only embarrass yourself!



Let us attempt to address your various confusions one point at a time. As a brief preamble, it must be again stressed that no one is under any obligation to prove you wrong. The NMFZ and the Embayment, due to their rather unique properties, have been the subject of many decades of qualified research and are surprisingly well understood. Should you disagree with these understandings, it is your responsibility to validate your speculations through thorough and documented research. To date, this latter aspect has apparently not been demonstrated. Points of address:

1) You have repeatedly referred to satellite views in incorporation with the term stratigraphy. Unless you have satellite views of trenching, road cuts, etc., you would be referring to topography, not stratigraphy. This is a very critical distinction.

2) Your repeated references to "impactites" would not appear to have been validated by anyone qualified to evaluate lithic specimens. In fact, it would appear that what responses you have received (including my own) identify these specimens as being of a sedimentary nature. This is, of course, consistent with the geomorphology of your locale as demonstrated by the previously supplied documentation.

3) You have professed to have visually identified nanodiamonds within the sedimentary materials in question. This has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate assessment.

4) You have professed to have examples of molten ferric material incorporated into the matrix of the sedimentary materials. This aspect has yet to be clearly presented or verified.

5) You have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to the complex geological formational processes of the landform upon which you reside. This is despite the references provided.

6) You have additional demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to the life and writings of W. Clark. The following are quite lay-oriented, but, as you do not appear to be inclined to conduct more detailed research, will need to suffice for the moment. [Note: Yes, it does pain me to again utilize Wiki. However, in this case, the reference is heavily based upon the qualified research of Buckley].

http://www.scienceviews.com/historical/ ... clark.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... 11&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cl ... xplorer%29

7) Your understandings of the process(s) of permineralization are so tragically inaccurate as to be disturbing. Should you wish further detailed information in regards to this specific topic, do inquire. Will not bother to elucidate upon such in this response.

8) Your exaggerated comment in regards to a "frozen river valley" would also appear to indicate a lack of understanding in regards to both the climatology of the period and the realities of frost level penetration in the area of concern.

Given the extent of the lack of substantiation for your speculation, there is little likelihood that any professional would bother to "analyze" your property without remuneration. This is an aspect that you have apparently already encountered. In essence, the research has already been conducted. However, should you choose to pursue professional investigation, you would be advised to hire a licensed geologist from your area. By doing so, you will reduce your overall expense in regards to travel, per diem, etc. By contacting the below, you should be able to locate a professional in your area that could provide you with an estimate for services rendered.

http://www.msbrpg.ms.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Edit: Plural

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi nacom -



You can see the 145C spikes, and 2 of them are associated with impacts: just to the right of the 50,000 bp marker ("Meteor" Crater), and at 12,900 bp (HSIE and related craters).

Can somebody find me a better and larger image of the old INTcal98 14C production chart than the one abused by this bunch of nuts?

Hi E.P.,

Am unsure as to the source of the above figure. It is not from INTCAL 98. Also question the 14C data. The following will allow you to download the INTCAL 98 PDF. Should you have difficulties, can PM you the PDF.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /3781/3206

However, you may be better served by the updated INTCAL 09. See below. Can also forward the PDF of this one if desired. Am expecting another update in the relatively near future once the Suigetsu data has been analyzed and incorporated.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /3781/3206

.

I am unsure of the source, but the image was used quite commonly.
The graph is for 14C production.

Note that the graph goes back to 50,000 bp, far further than the paper you posted.
(By the way, both or the links were to INTcal98, neither to INTcal09.)

The graph also shows spikes, which smoothing processes eliminated.

NEWSFLASH: its one of Firstone's old graphs from the Mammoth Trumpet, Volume 16, Number 2 March 2001
Center First Americans, those cranks at Texas A&M.

Data sources:
Fig. 2 plots 14C from the INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration data of Stuiver et al. for 15,000-0 yr B.P.27 and Icelandic marine sediment 14C data measured by Voelker et al. for 50,000-11,000 yr B.P.28

This was in 2001, when Firestone was only looking at nearby supernova. He had not considered cometary impact at that time.

[Nacon]

E.P. Grondine


I am unsure of the source, but the image was used quite commonly.
The graph is for 14C production.

Note that the graph goes back to 50,000 bp, far further than the paper you posted.
(By the way, both or the links were to INTcal98, neither to INTcal09.)

The graph also shows spikes, which smoothing processes eliminated.


E.P.

Apologies for the duplication. INTCAL 09 can be sourced at the below:

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bi ... rine09.pdf

As to the initial figure, this comes from a website that is not necessarily known for credibility (bibliotec). One of the major issues with this figure is the apparent "extrapolation" of 14C data. One may wish to investigate the actual paper that this figure was extracted from.

.

[E.P. Grondine]

E.P. Grondine


I am unsure of the source, but the image was used quite commonly.
The graph is for 14C production.

Note that the graph goes back to 50,000 bp, far further than the paper you posted.
(By the way, both or the links were to INTcal98, neither to INTcal09.)

The graph also shows spikes, which smoothing processes eliminated.


E.P.

Apologies for the duplication. INTCAL 09 can be sourced at the below:

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bi ... rine09.pdf

As to the initial figure, this comes from a website that is not necessarily known for credibility (bibliotec). One of the major issues with this figure is the apparent "extrapolation" of 14C data. One may wish to investigate the actual paper that this figure was extracted from.

.

Hi nacom - I found it. see NEWSFLASH above. We're online at the same time.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi nacom -

At least kalopin is not a creatrionist insisting that an impact happened then because the Earth is too young for anything else to have occurred.

Kind of makes you wonder why the Fundamentalits there in Mississippi are failing so badly in their educational outreach tasks. I guess they are too busy spending their time in politics.

You know, from what I've seen, while the Chickasaws enjoy visiting their old sites in Mississippi, they are pretty happy to be in Oklahoma, and have no desire to reclaim them permanently. From what I can make out it has something to do with crazy white folks, though no one says too much about it.

[E.P. Grondine]

Ernie posted this over on Old World, but it sounds like great fun:

"Based on the scandalous slice of War and Peace, THE GREAT COMET OF 1812 is a heart breakingly gorgeous and wickedly sharp theatrical event. It is a performance like none other, blending romance, cabaret, comedy and vodka. Come experience the elegance and allure of Tsarist Russia, when lovers spoke by letter and the night sky was set ablaze by The Great Comet of 1812. Prepare yourself, the comet is coming."

Despite my diabetes, a shot of Cherry Noir with club soda over ice sounds pretty good right now.
Add in some Russian appetizers, and it sounds like my idea of a theatrical experience.

[Kalopin]

"Kalopin"

Study up on stratigraphy and see, all the 'credible documentation to support' is readily viewable on any satellite!

Listen- you get this site analyzed and if I am wrong, I will apologize to you. If I am correct, what will you say? Until you can find one little 'shred' of something to argue against an impact scenario, you have no 'platform' to stand on! So 'address' on! You will only embarrass yourself!



Let us attempt to address your various confusions one point at a time. As a brief preamble, it must be again stressed that no one is under any obligation to prove you wrong. The NMFZ and the Embayment, due to their rather unique properties, have been the subject of many decades of qualified research and are surprisingly well understood. Should you disagree with these understandings, it is your responsibility to validate your speculations through thorough and documented research. To date, this latter aspect has apparently not been demonstrated. Points of address:

1) You have repeatedly referred to satellite views in incorporation with the term stratigraphy. Unless you have satellite views of trenching, road cuts, etc., you would be referring to topography, not stratigraphy. This is a very critical distinction.

2) Your repeated references to "impactites" would not appear to have been validated by anyone qualified to evaluate lithic specimens. In fact, it would appear that what responses you have received (including my own) identify these specimens as being of a sedimentary nature. This is, of course, consistent with the geomorphology of your locale as demonstrated by the previously supplied documentation.

3) You have professed to have visually identified nanodiamonds within the sedimentary materials in question. This has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate assessment.

4) You have professed to have examples of molten ferric material incorporated into the matrix of the sedimentary materials. This aspect has yet to be clearly presented or verified.

5) You have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to the complex geological formational processes of the landform upon which you reside. This is despite the references provided.

6) You have additional demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to the life and writings of W. Clark. The following are quite lay-oriented, but, as you do not appear to be inclined to conduct more detailed research, will need to suffice for the moment. [Note: Yes, it does pain me to again utilize Wiki. However, in this case, the reference is heavily based upon the qualified research of Buckley].

http://www.scienceviews.com/historical/ ... clark.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... 11&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cl ... xplorer%29

7) Your understandings of the process(s) of permineralization are so tragically inaccurate as to be disturbing. Should you wish further detailed information in regards to this specific topic, do inquire. Will not bother to elucidate upon such in this response.

Your exaggerated comment in regards to a "frozen river valley" would also appear to indicate a lack of understanding in regards to both the climatology of the period and the realities of frost level penetration in the area of concern.

Given the extent of the lack of substantiation for your speculation, there is little likelihood that any professional would bother to "analyze" your property without remuneration. This is an aspect that you have apparently already encountered. In essence, the research has already been conducted. However, should you choose to pursue professional investigation, you would be advised to hire a licensed geologist from your area. By doing so, you will reduce your overall expense in regards to travel, per diem, etc. By contacting the below, you should be able to locate a professional in your area that could provide you with an estimate for services rendered.

http://www.msbrpg.ms.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Edit: Plural

You are ridiculous!
My use of the term stratigraphy refers to the arrangement of strata throughout the 'New Madrid Lines', duh!

2-4: NO! There is NO sedimentary process that could have formed these rocks! I can not see how anyone would think two seperate slabs of rock could be fused completely by any concretion process! You had better give closer study. I really do have several hundred more excellent examples everyone has yet to see. Do you suggest you have given me a professional determination?

5- No, YOU are demonstrating a 'lack of understanding'! The New Madrid Lines ARE the strata lines from a shockwave. They are evenly spaced rolling hills, and could NOT have been formed by any other means!

6. Will you cite your reference to Clark's involvement. If he did not go to, study or write about these events, why do you believe his NON-involvement matters?

7. During an impact containing cometary material, sand melts and vitrifies upon contact instantly fossilizing into impactites. No need for the long process of permineralization in such unusual circumstances!

8. Nope, no 'exaggeration' the entire river valley was frozen, check the records. And in such an impact, coming in at such a low angle from almost due south over the horizon, was perfect aim to 'toss' and 'flip' massive amounts of land in huge slabs. This is why there were so many 'sand blows'. The pressure pushed up and out material in directional angles from impact, as every one of the sand blows encircles this central structure- STUDY IT!
The New Madrid fault could not have formed 'The Tiptonville Dome'- a huge mound of dirt pushed up by this impact, that is directly above the faultline. How could a deep fault form a large mound of land directly above? It can NOT and you can not explain any way it could!

NO, I have had many to want to further investigate, but are under circumstances. I had a person from USGS come over, give study, was VERY convinced that I am correct and was promptly sent to Haiti to study the earthquake their. We were suppose to join this person at a C.E.R.I. meeting, but being in Haiti could not be there. When we arrived at the meeting Gary Patterson made a 'bee line' straight for us, checked one of my rocks, said he didn't 'think' they were impactites and quickly changed the entire meeting, taking out the question/answer period and not giving any chance for a discussion. C.E.R.I. has basically just ignored my findings, never giving any substantial study, just as you?

Hard for me to believe you all have made more than two hundred posts without ever answering one single question!
You all would make great politicians!
Congratulations, you deserve some kind of reward-
'Trip Like I Do': http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/black-sab ... yrics.html

[circumspice]

This thread has become pointless, repetitive & BORING. *yawn*

[uniface]

Indisputably.

However.

There is information being presented and going onto the record (such as it is) -- information -- data -- that can be followed-up on by anyone interested -- now, or however many years from now.

That, IMO, is the actual value of such fora and such exchanges on them as this one. Long after the smoke clears and the stink's blown away, the information (whatever its value) will endure.

Entertaining dialogues are any forum's best "hook." People tend to respond the way children do. You get their attention with something entertaining, and slip information into the process, like getting them to sing the alphabet song. After the entertainment phase has passed, it remains that they've been exposed to the information.

Candy-flavored vitamin pills are still vitamin pills.