Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

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: MichelleH, Minimalist

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:51 am

uniface wrote:That's all well and good -- as far as it goes. Which, IMO, isn't far enough. This is why :

What you're doing is elucidating the current model of these celestial phenomena. It's what people do in nearly every case when some alternative possibility is broached. And, at great length and elaborate detail, what the conclusion boils down to is, "That can't be so, because the model doesn't allow it to be so."

But describing current theory, and taking the limitations of reality that imposes as being a description of reality itself rather than of people's attempts to model it regularly produces conceptual train wrecks when theory finally encounters reality in a form it's unable to evade.

An example from an author I've been finding fascinating but won't name because it would derail the discussion into the Stinky Old Poopie Head abreaction :
Just before the end of the last century the US patent office issued a direction: “No more patents on electromagnetism will be accepted, for whatever is to be invented in electromagnetism, has already been invented.”
The scientific press at one time was full of ponderously learned explanations of why the very idea of manned, heavier-than-air flight was an absurd impossibility. Not a few journals of record classed it, along with perpetual motion machines, as a topic closed to discussion.

This seems worth noting as relevant to your post. Not on the basis of my being able to provide, detailed, quantifiable data that refute it, but because the pattern involved is a car that's been circling the block for hundreds of years, in plain sight. And almost always ending the same way -- with the quiet scuttling of theoretical models of reality (like that stones could not possibly fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky that could fall) that, however satisfying, proved inadequate.
Well, OK then put aside the current model of celestial impacts, and elucidate another model of celestial phenomena and impact(Wood did not do that) that explains how a comet could cause the Chicago fire. If the current models fail to account for how a comet might do that, other then a direct hit above a certain size, what model does? That's not asking for much. Wood didn't provide it. Back in the 1700's , the poopyheads of their day said that peasants that claimed to have seen rocks fall from the sky were crazy, uneducated fools. They were not, as you observed. Eventually those rocks were recognized as solar system debris. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It should be that way I think. It does make for generations of poopyheads at times, but just because the mainstream theorists and scientists parade out the current models does not mean those models are always wrong.
Everybody knows that paradigms are overturned. Science often works that way, as demonstrated long ago in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Another way that notion has been put is that new ideas only take hold firmly when the last generation holding to the old ideas or paradigm dies. So, are you saying because anything is possible, the current models must be regarded as "well, OK, but there is probably something out there that will prove to be an exception to those models so not really good enough in probable reality"? (My words, not yours, and, actually, it's a good attitude to have, it's better then close mindedness, IMHO) You're familiar with Charles Fort. I love his collection of anomalies and events that seem to discredit accepted ideas.
But does that really mean every explanation for a phenomena is not good enough because there MIGHT be exceptions?
Please present an alternate model of how impactors behave, whether meteoric or cometary debris. Not incumbent on you, as you state, I don't really expect you to, but maybe someone can find a good model we're not aware of. But otherwise, you seem to be saying the current models aren't good enough in this instance because an unproven theory might be a better bet. I'm all for open mindedness, but without a convincing explanation of how the Chicago fire of 1871 was caused by a comet what good does an unproven theory make? It's not as if you can reproduce the alleged impact in a lab and then say, hey it must have been a comet! I have to believe if you were steeped in an understanding of these phenomena, you would not be suggesting a comet, anymore then Wood should have had he had a better education in the area. But I do admire your attitude regarding accepted "theorydom" in general. I share it, really. I know exactly the kind of people you are talking about. They are intelligent, yet they fail to understand they only think they know far more then they really do. They do not have the creative imagination needed to see beyond the accepted, to at least entertain the unaccepted as possible. They often rise to the top of the profession by playing the game "correctly" and debunking "crackpots" with a "sledgehammer" approach to debate. "He's a crackpot, we can ignore him now. It has been decided. he is a crackpot". What mainstream science did to Immanuel Velikovsky and his impact theories are a good example of how ruhless a response an idea viewed as "crackpot" can be. Or Wilhelm Reich and his "orgone energy" machine. or his cloudbusters. Ruthless supression, he ended up in prison for that matter. Poopyheads can be downright dangerous! Seems like every generation thinks they have reality all figured out. If people knew how much I think outside the box, well there would be plenty who would believe I belonged in a room with padded walls. :mrgreen:

"Like studying the surface of a comet"

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/206/t ... meteorite-

I would never discourage a highly skeptical attitude in this or any other intellectual endeavor. I in fact feel sorry for people who cannot think outside the box. I try to do so constantly. God forbid I ever find myself elevated to "poopyhead" status.
If there were another explanation existing that could explain how a non extinction level comet impact could start a fire, I'm all ears for it. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with one. In and of itself, there is nothing really lacking in elucidating current models. Especially if it seems to make Wood's hypothesis untenable. If only for the time being.

E.P. Grondine

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by E.P. Grondine » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:11 am

Hi shawomet -

PIB gave you the comet samples. Read up on them.
Contrary to what you think, comets are not ice and "dust".

I am really really tired of people presenting themselves as experts on impact phenomenon, comets, and asteroids when they do not know what they are talking about.

You are not alone in doing this, and you are not the first.

I gave you the explanation. Once again, it was an escaped fire, one set for burning forest debris from railroad construction, that led to the Peshtigo fire and the fire on the Wisconsin's Door Peninsula.

NOT COMET BIELA.

Sorry, but what you and Laura and Donelly have is an impact wrong.
If it had of been a impact right, I would have confirmed it.

And by the way, laura and you have both left out any mention of the individuals who looked at this possibility earlier, including the work of many respectable impact researchers who I personally know. Academically, that's politely called plagiarism; less politely, it is called theft. And that is something else that happens to me.

But field investigation proved that the fires were not impact related. Aunt Anne, who is dead now, provided me with such family memories as survived before she passed on. And Cousin Todd and Cousin Willie still live today near Powers, just up the road from Peshtigo. Their mother Donna lives in Escanaba now.

And the Minominee and Potowatomi still live in the area today as well.

This is not and was not the only impact wrong I checked out,
often following up suggestions by respectable impact researchers who I know personally .

If I tell you it is an impact wrong, then it very probably and most likely it is.
Do not try to lay any boogie woogie on the King of Rock and Roll.

shawomet, I do not know where you live, but please please take a trip to the Peshtigo Fire Museum before you confuse people with any more nonsense about cometary impact, comet composition, impact mechanics, or the mechanics of meteoroid entry.

uniface

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by uniface » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:57 pm

If the current models fail to account for how a comet might do that, other then a direct hit above a certain size, what model does? That's not asking for much.
This is probably not what you have in mind, but it's what I could find easily :
DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL
• Comets are composed of undifferentiated “protoplanetary debris,” dust and ices left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.
• Radiant heat from the Sun sublimates the ices (turns them directly into vapor without the intermediate step of becoming liquid). The vapor expands around the nucleus to form the coma (head of the comet) and is swept back by the solar wind to form the tail.
• Radiation damage over billions of years in the “deep freeze” of a hypothetical distant Oort cloud, or reservoir of comets, blackens their surface.
• Over repeated passages around the Sun, the Sun’s heat vaporizes surface ice and leaves a ‘rind’ of dust.
• Where heat penetrates the surface of a blackened, shallow crust, pockets of gas form. Where the pressure breaks through the surface, energetic jets form.

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:

• Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history — a phase that persisted into early human history. Comets are complex, differentiated bodies similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous — their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
• Comets follow their eccentric orbits within a weak electrical field of constant strength, centered on the Sun. (See “A Mystery Solved – Welcome to the Electric Universe!“. They develop a charge imbalance with the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun that initiates discharge and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath – appearing as the coma and tail.
• The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.
• Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharge machining. The primary distinction between a comet and an asteroid is that, due to its elliptical orbit, electrical arcing and ‘electrostatic cleaning’ will clean the nucleus’ surface, leaving little or no dust or debris on it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That is the silliest of all the mind-numbing pronouncements people come out with when their worldviews are pressed into a corner.

"Extraordinary" is only meaningful with relation to what people currently believe. That puts their beliefs up on the throne, with anybody disagreeing with them in the role of humble petitioners for recognition and agreement.

No thanks.

Absent that game, claims are simply claims, and evidence is simply evidence. The only thing "extraordinary" about the "claim" that people existed here during the Pleistocene was that people assumed it could not have been true. And in the end, all it took was Blackwater Gulch . . . simple evidence that couldn't be rationalised away or gainsid by those with a motive for doing that.

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15687
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by Minimalist » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:39 pm

Absent that game, claims are simply claims, and evidence is simply evidence.

Yes....but. The "but" is that there are too many situations in which an original claim is based on miniscule (or even silly) evidence but, because it was first, it is asserted that some extraordinary evidence is needed to reverse the original claim.

I am reminded of Flinder's Petrie's pronouncement that the Egyptian word "Ysirir" on the Merneptha stele meant "Israel." The word appears no where else in the entire corpus of Egyptian literature. In spite of the fact that "Israel" does not even appear in Aramaic for another 4 centuries the fact that such an icon as Petrie said it meant "Israel" means that no one is willing to dispute it.
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

uniface

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by uniface » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:41 am

Well, sure !

So what does anyone sensible do ? He looks at the evidence itself.

Not where it came from, not the political affiliations of the messenger, not whether similar claims have been dismissed before, not who's going to be angry if his opinions are undermined by it, or any of the other red herrings people want to drag into it.

This guy Leeuwenhoek claims that water's full of little, wiggly bugs. How beyond even absurd an idea is that ? But he says that anybody who looks at it through this gadget he's made can see them too. What to do ? Take him up on it. NOT try to assess the likelihood that he's right in advance. :wink:

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:44 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi shawomet -

PIB gave you the comet samples. Read up on them.
Contrary to what you think, comets are not ice and "dust".

I am really really tired of people presenting themselves as experts on impact phenomenon, comets, and asteroids when they do not know what they are talking about.

You are not alone in doing this, and you are not the first.

I gave you the explanation. Once again, it was an escaped fire, one set for burning forest debris from railroad construction, that led to the Peshtigo fire and the fire on the Wisconsin's Door Peninsula.

NOT COMET BIELA.

Sorry, but what you and Laura and Donelly have is an impact wrong.
If it had of been a impact right, I would have confirmed it.

And by the way, laura and you have both left out any mention of the individuals who looked at this possibility earlier, including the work of many respectable impact researchers who I personally know. Academically, that's politely called plagiarism; less politely, it is called theft. And that is something else that happens to me.

But field investigation proved that the fires were not impact related. Aunt Anne, who is dead now, provided me with such family memories as survived before she passed on. And Cousin Todd and Cousin Willie still live today near Powers, just up the road from Peshtigo. Their mother Donna lives in Escanaba now.

And the Minominee and Potowatomi still live in the area today as well.

This is not and was not the only impact wrong I checked out,
often following up suggestions by respectable impact researchers who I know personally .

If I tell you it is an impact wrong, then it very probably and most likely it is.
Do not try to lay any boogie woogie on the King of Rock and Roll.

shawomet, I do not know where you live, but please please take a trip to the Peshtigo Fire Museum before you confuse people with any more nonsense about cometary impact, comet composition, impact mechanics, or the mechanics of meteoroid entry.
Mr.Grondine is here confusing me with another forum member.
Last edited by shawomet on Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:21 am, edited 3 times in total.

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:05 am

uniface wrote:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


That is the silliest of all the mind-numbing pronouncements people come out with when their worldviews are pressed into a corner.

"Extraordinary" is only meaningful with relation to what people currently believe. That puts their beliefs up on the throne, with anybody disagreeing with them in the role of humble petitioners for recognition and agreement.

No thanks.

Absent that game, claims are simply claims, and evidence is simply evidence. The only thing "extraordinary" about the "claim" that people existed here during the Pleistocene was that people assumed it could not have been true. And in the end, all it took was Blackwater Gulch . . . simple evidence that couldn't be rationalised away or gainsid by those with a motive for doing that"



Excellent points and I agree with you. Thanks for pointing that out. Very non-Fortean of me :(

E.P. Grondine

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by E.P. Grondine » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:08 pm

Hi shawomet -

"Comets are rocks and ice, dirty snowballs as they've been called."

That is yours, is it not?

I know PIB.

For that matter, I knew Sir Fred Hoyle, who if memory serves originated that statement.
Studies on comet composition have come a long way since the 1950's, when he made it.

You're mistaken about comets, meteoroid storms, and the Peshtigo and Door Fires.

Data is what it is.
If you can't handle it, that is simply too bad.

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:27 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi shawomet -

"Comets are rocks and ice, dirty snowballs as they've been called."

That is yours, is it not?

I know PIB.

For that matter, I knew Sir Fred Hoyle, who if memory serves originated that statement.
Studies on comet composition have come a long way since the 1950's, when he made it.

You're mistaken about comets, meteoroid storms, and the Peshtigo and Door Fires.

Data is what it is.
If you can't handle it, that is simply too bad.

Mr. Grondine continues to mistake me for another forum member.
Last edited by shawomet on Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

E.P. Grondine

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by E.P. Grondine » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:57 am

shawomet wrote:
E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi shawomet -

"Comets are rocks and ice, dirty snowballs as they've been called."

That is yours, is it not?

I know PIB.

For that matter, I knew Sir Fred Hoyle, who if memory serves originated that statement.
Studies on comet composition have come a long way since the 1950's, when he made it.

You're mistaken about comets, meteoroid storms, and the Peshtigo and Door Fires.

Data is what it is.
If you can't handle it, that is simply too bad.

You are such a clown. In my first comment to this thread I posted a snippet about Donnelly because someone said the comet theory sounded familiar. I also included a link debunking the comet theory in that first comment. Subsequently, I expressed my doubts that a comet caused the Chicago fire or the other fires. You misrepresented my comments and my point of view. and you did so either because you did not pay due attention or because accuracy is not important to you. It seems you still have not recognized your careless mistake. I argued that Comet Biela did NOT cause the Chicago fire or the other fires. So, are you saying I was mistaken when I suggested Comet Biela did not cause the fires? LOL. You mistook me for another poster if you honestly believe it is me supporting the comet theory. Although I support his right to suggest that theory of course. To reply to me here, you pick out one sentence I said that you deem in error, and yet all your other points of criticism have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I actually said in the thread. But you, being the epitome of arrogance, dare not dwell on your own fundamental error at the heart of your response, namely completely misrepresenting what I said. So, I had every right to ask you what in the world are you talking about since 99.9% of your adminisions(including accusing me of plagerism) had nada to do with my comments.The arguments you claim I support were not the arguments I actually laid out and quite clearly supported in my comments! You are extremely insecure if you cannot admit the obvious error you made. IMO. Actually, it's your arrogance more then anything.

I've collected meteorites for 30 years, and I remember you from the meteorite-list years ago. So I did know what your focus was long before I joined Archaeologica.org. And I certainly knew your style. The unappreciated genius. So insecure he has to put the name of his book in his signature. So revolving around his own theory that he can't resist asking anyone if they have read it or want to buy a copy. In fact you asked me a few weeks ago if perhaps I would like to read your book. Forgot to answer you. No, my wife found a copy at a local Salvation Army. Never got around to reading it, maybe next Winter I'll use it for kindling. Well, LOL, that wouldn't be right to pull a Fahrenheit 451. I'll give it away.

Yep, I know your style well, E.P.Grondine. Pompous. Pontificating. Condescending. Always talk down to the mere mortals. I can see how tiring it must be to dealing with ordinary humans on way too frequent a basis. But then except for the one sentence you picked out, you were simply not man enough to admit you were attributing comments and opinions to me that I did not make and do not hold. You claim I made a mistake blaming Comet Biela for the 1871 fires, but I said I did not see how it could have caused the fires. Again, within the context of the thread itself, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Even in this response by you, you miss that point. I wonder if your mental faculties are slipping with age frankly. What a careless mistake you made, but to be unable to even admit it, well, your pompous air knows no limit apparently.

So it begs, the question, why would you not admit as much?? Question already answered: you are not EP Grondine if you are forced to admit a mistake. You would have to descend, if but only to say "sorry bout that", from your throne on high. And who put you there? You did, in your own mind. So pompous he can't even admit a mistake, even though anyone reading the thread can clearly see you did. That is one thick and impenetrable wall of arrogance you've built around yourself. But it has always been very transparent to me that your bloated ego knows no bounds and cannot admit to the world of mere mortals that the great EP Grondine might not really be all knowing after all. He might actually be a mortal like the rest of us. God forbid you be the one to let that secret slip out.

Next time you respond in a thread, try and read the entire thread and get the commentators/respondents clear in your mind before you assume the throne and do your famous "talk down to the mortal" act. I can't take it, E.P.? Are you sure?? Or is it more a matter of a genius being unable to admit to so much as a single mistake? You've built your throne so high and so strong, you really shouldn't worry it might topple if you appear to have misspoke. Which you did, as anyone reading the thread can clearly see, whether you like it or not, and despite the fact you apparently do not have what it takes to admit that.

Oh, and BTW, I don't care who you know. What should we say "ooh, he knew Fred Doyle, wow ". I don't think I've ever run across anyone who puffs up his importance more then you do. E.P. Grondine, a legend in his own mind....


Here's your completely irrelevant to my comments comment again. You dealt with the first sentence in this reply. Now, can you or anyone else find anything in your comment below that applied to anything that I said in my comments beyond the first sentence? Of course not. You were not replying to me at all, you just cannot admit it for the reasons I have stated. At this point I am in danger of making a mountain out of a molehill, but you do understand I do not worship E.P. Grondine and the ground he walks on. But, if you want E.P., you can continue with your brilliant analysis and tell me how the remainder of your comments below actually apply to anything I actually claimed in my comments?

"I gave you the explanation. Once again, it was an escaped fire, one set for burning forest debris from railroad construction, that led to the Peshtigo fire and the fire on the Wisconsin's Door Peninsula.

NOT COMET BIELA.

Sorry, but what you and Laura and Donelly have is an impact wrong."

Hello? Come in, E.P. Anybody home upstairs? Tell me again how you managed to put me in the Comet Biela camp based on my comments, E.P. But don't try too hard, it can't be done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your complete response, the overwhelming majority of which is in complete error in relation to any comment I made anywhere in this thread.


E.P. Grondine wrote:
Hi shawomet -

PIB gave you the comet samples. Read up on them.
Contrary to what you think, comets are not ice and "dust".

I am really really tired of people presenting themselves as experts on impact phenomenon, comets, and asteroids when they do not know what they are talking about.

You are not alone in doing this, and you are not the first.

I gave you the explanation. Once again, it was an escaped fire, one set for burning forest debris from railroad construction, that led to the Peshtigo fire and the fire on the Wisconsin's Door Peninsula.

NOT COMET BIELA.

Sorry, but what you and Laura and Donelly have is an impact wrong.
If it had of been a impact right, I would have confirmed it.

And by the way, laura and you have both left out any mention of the individuals who looked at this possibility earlier, including the work of many respectable impact researchers who I personally know. Academically, that's politely called plagiarism; less politely, it is called theft. And that is something else that happens to me.

But field investigation proved that the fires were not impact related. Aunt Anne, who is dead now, provided me with such family memories as survived before she passed on. And Cousin Todd and Cousin Willie still live today near Powers, just up the road from Peshtigo. Their mother Donna lives in Escanaba now.

And the Minominee and Potowatomi still live in the area today as well.

This is not and was not the only impact wrong I checked out,
often following up suggestions by respectable impact researchers who I know personally .

If I tell you it is an impact wrong, then it very probably and most likely it is.
Do not try to lay any boogie woogie on the King of Rock and Roll.

shawomet, I do not know where you live, but please please take a trip to the Peshtigo Fire Museum before you confuse people with any more nonsense about cometary impact, comet composition, impact mechanics, or the mechanics of meteoroid entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And by the way, laura and you have both left out any mention of the individuals who looked at this possibility earlier, including the work of many respectable impact researchers who I personally know. Academically, that's politely called plagiarism; less politely, it is called theft. And that is something else that happens to me."


Sigh, I'm so tired of having to deal with unappreciated geniuses. LOL. What in the world are you talking about!?!? Whatever you're talking about, I have not committed plagiarism anywhere. Nor do you know the definition of plagiarism by the sounds of it. An individual posts an excerpt about Donnelly, a link to a 1871 comet theory naysayer, does not mention people you feel should be mentioned, in an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal mind you, and this constitutes plagiarism in your eyes? Not to mention I don't know what you are talking about in the first place. Your continuing and befuddling inability to recognize who's who and who said what in the contest of this thread has really only accomplished one thing. You made, and apparently you're content to continue to make, a fool of yourself. If you can't handle it, that is simply too bad. At no point in this thread did I support the comet theory for the 1871 fires. At no point in this thread did I plagiarize. I argued against the comet theory and asked for a model that would support it, as I believed it was not a tenable explanation.

shawomet said:

"But does that really mean every explanation for a phenomena is not good enough because there MIGHT be exceptions?
Please present an alternate model of how impactors behave, whether meteoric or cometary debris. Not incumbent on you, as you state, I don't really expect you to, but maybe someone can find a good model we're not aware of. But otherwise, you seem to be saying the current models aren't good enough in this instance because an unproven theory might be a better bet. I'm all for open mindedness, but without a convincing explanation of how the Chicago fire of 1871 was caused by a comet what good does an unproven theory make? It's not as if you can reproduce the alleged impact in a lab and then say, hey it must have been a comet! I have to believe if you were steeped in an understanding of these phenomena, you would not be suggesting a comet, anymore then Wood should have had he had a better education in the area."
My apologies, shawomet. I mistook you for one of the stalkers who have plagued me for years.

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:48 am

Apology most certainly accepted, Mr. Grondine. It's a shame the Hueyatlaco thread had to devolve as well. At any rate, I very much respect you for saying this and I'm not here to see if I can get under your skin in any thread I might start or comment in. Sorry I did not see your last comment sooner, but I had given up believing you would understand me and only just now looked at the thread again. I apologize if that tardiness resulted in a spillover into the Hueyatlaco thread.

E.P. Grondine

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by E.P. Grondine » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:18 am

shawomet wrote:Apology most certainly accepted, Mr. Grondine. It's a shame the Hueyatlaco thread had to devolve as well. At any rate, I very much respect you for saying this and I'm not here to see if I can get under your skin in any thread I might start or comment in. Sorry I did not see your last comment sooner, but I had given up believing you would understand me and only just now looked at the thread again. I apologize if that tardiness resulted in a spillover into the Hueyatlaco thread.
Its no shame, shawomet. There are various nuts out there promoting different forms of cult archaeology and wander by here trying to do it.

A lot of their scams were covered in "Fantastic Archaeology", others at the Hall of Maat, and still others by other researchers who have spent a lot of time discovering the truth about them. Like impact specialists, it is a tight knit community, and the people who actually work in it share data among themselves.

Aside from the Cult Archaeology nonsense, another problem arises when some other fanatics try to lump:

1) hominid evolution in SE Asia
2) early marine technology,cultures, and contacts
3) pre-clovis
4) impact archaeology

in with Cult Archaeology.

There are also other deviants who rather delierately bring up "process" in attrempts to avoid dicussinh factual evidence.

For example, instead of discussing pre-clovis you bring up Hueyatlaco.

When one is functionally dealing with pre-clovis, the fate of Hibben is of far more interest than the anomalous data from Hueyatlaco.

I also simply have little time for people who present themselves as impact specialists when they are not skilled in impact preocesses.

That is the difference between work and entertainment. My own work has very serious consequences.
For example, NASA has currently proposed $1,500 for an asteroid retrieval mission, and the opposition to it by vested interests is intense, fanatical, and well funded.

Shawomet, its a free country, and you can bring up as many anomalies here as your wish, along with as much "theory" of science as you wish. You need to understand that I am a low brow determinist, and view most of it as b*** s****.
Also, data alway wins in the end. Reality intrudes upon fantasies, and castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually.

Present yourself as an impact specialist here again, and I will call you on that claim.
In other words, hand you the same treatment which others have handed me for many years,

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
(which book everyone who actually is an impact specialist has already read)

E.P. Grondine

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by E.P. Grondine » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:22 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:
shawomet wrote:Apology most certainly accepted, Mr. Grondine. It's a shame the Hueyatlaco thread had to devolve as well. At any rate, I very much respect you for saying this and I'm not here to see if I can get under your skin in any thread I might start or comment in. Sorry I did not see your last comment sooner, but I had given up believing you would understand me and only just now looked at the thread again. I apologize if that tardiness resulted in a spillover into the Hueyatlaco thread.
Its no shame, shawomet. There are various nuts out there promoting different forms of cult archaeology who wander by here trying to do it.

A lot of their scams were covered in "Fantastic Archaeology", others at the Hall of Maat, and still others by other researchers who have spent a lot of time discovering the truth about them. Like impact specialists, it is a tight knit community, and the people who actually work in it share data among themselves.

Aside from the Cult Archaeology nonsense, another problem arises when some other fanatics try to lump:

1) hominid evolution in SE Asia
2) early marine technology,cultures, and contacts
3) pre-clovis
4) impact archaeology

in with Cult Archaeology.

There are also other deviants who rather delierately bring up "process" in attrempts to avoid dicussing factual evidence.

For example, instead of discussing pre-clovis, they bring up Hueyatlaco.

When one is functionally dealing with pre-clovis, the fate of Hibben is of far more interest than the anomalous data from Hueyatlaco. If you were on the meteorite list at the time, you may have read my defense of Hibben, a seriously wounded vet who because of his service was unable to defend himself at the time of he initial attacks on his work. It took a lot of time to corner today's weasels; I would have prefered that someone else did it, but since I had to, I take a certain satisfaction in knowing thar I did.

I also simply have little time for people who present themselves as impact specialists when they are not skilled in impact preocesses.

That is the difference between work and entertainment. My own work has very serious consequences.
For example, NASA has currently proposed $1,500 for an asteroid retrieval mission, and the opposition to it by vested interests is intense, fanatical, and well funded. It often involves people who I call G*d D**n F*******g MARS NUTS.

Shawomet, its a free country, and you can bring up as many anomalies here as your wish, along with as much "theory" of science as you wish. You need to understand that I view most of it as distracting b*** s****.

In the real world, data alway wins in the end. Reality intrudes upon fantasies, and castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually.

Present yourself as an impact specialist here again, and I will call you on that claim.
(In other words, hand you the same treatment which others have handed me for many years,)

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
(which book everyone who actually is an impact specialist has already read)

shawomet
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Chicago Fire (1871) Comet-Caused

Post by shawomet » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:51 am

Mr. Grondine wrote:

"Present yourself as an impact specialist here again, and I will call you on that claim.
(In other words, hand you the same treatment which others have handed me for many years,)"

You have a very active imagination, Mr. Grondine. I did not present myself as an impact specialist at all, sir. Please do not take out on me what others have handed you. It's not appropriate.

Post Reply