Mammoth found, killed with buckshot

[shadron]

(Can't you just hear the creationists?)

Listening to BBC this evening, and they announced that a conference in San Francisco heard a paper about a find of a mammoth and a bison which were peppered by what is assumed to have been an asteroid destroying itself in an air explosion about 35,000 years ago. The bison apparently lived through it; the mammoth didn't. They found what they are assuming to be asteroid "buckshot" embedded in the mammoth's tusks and the bison's skull.

Sounds fishy to me. I think that an air burst with that kind of result would have killed through blast and heat effects before shrapnel would have had a chance to get there. Perhaps it did and the corpse(s) experienced insult after injury before fossilization. Sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime sort of find, anyway.

[Zep]

Any links? References? Names?

[shadron]

Any links? References? Names?

Google didn't find anything. went to the BBC site, and found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7130014.stm

[Radrook]

How does creationism fit into this scenario?

[athon]

There's the recent finding that an atmospheric detonation of a comet or asteroid could have contributed to the demise of the megafauna...but I can't find anything where pieces of the asteroid were found in mammoth or bison remains.

Could they have misunderstood something and embellished it? There is mention of sediment identification in the articles.

Athon

[Zep]

Cool!

Hey, it's 13,000 years old - the Creationidiots will have even less to hang their hats on!

[shadron]

How does creationism fit into this scenario?

Just a little jest about the dinosaur track finds in Texas with human footprints in side them. (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm) What if a creationist had found these first? Would we have heard about early man carrying shotguns?

*snort*

Oh, well. Enough of my sense of humor, I suppose.

[shadron]

There's the recent finding that an atmospheric detonation of a comet or asteroid could have contributed to the demise of the megafauna...but I can't find anything where pieces of the asteroid were found in mammoth or bison remains.

Could they have misunderstood something and embellished it? There is mention of sediment identification in the articles.

Athon

See link in #3 above (found link during edit; that's why you may not have seen it.)

[athon]

Ah, cool. Thanks for the story. I think I'll use it on the show this weekend.

:)

Athon

[Badger]

I wonder about things like terminal velocity and shock waves.

What kind of speed is the projectile required to be travelling at to embed itself in bone, even without killing the animal?

Bow's shoot arrows at (low end) 200 Feet per Second (136 mph) but their penetration is more dependent on the mass of the arrow (kinetic energy). And a 136 mph wind driving particles at one would probably be a significant issue in itself.

Ballistics tables for rifle bullets indicate effectiveness is seriously compromised at around 1000 feet per second or 681 mph which, once more, is a significant breeze, IMHO.

So, while I'm not an authority on this topic or the facts I cite above, I have serious doubts about the validity of the argument presented.

[skeptigirl]

If you look at the Tunguska event it's easy to conceive of an animal being at just the right distance to survive (or be killed but not consumed by heat) and receive these fragments. Most meteoric material falls at terminal velocity sometimes after shattering before hitting the ground. I believe only larger meteorites make it through the atmosphere and impact the ground at speeds > terminal velocity. But the Tunguska event shows clearly that the above ground explosion created a shock wave that blew down trees the same way exploding gases from Mt St Helen's knocked down thousands of trees.

What seems most amazing to me is that these animals were within blasting range of the meteor. Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.....

From the picture which looks like a meteorite, the analysis of nickel iron which indicates a meteorite, the fact there are two specimens on two continents decreasing the odds of fraud, and, it was presented at a scientific conference, I find the story very credible.


Science is so much funner than woo, isn't it?

[Radrook]

Cool!

Hey, it's 13,000 years old - the Creationidiots will have even less to hang their hats on!

Oh. You mean the young earth creationists who believe that things were created in 24 hour days? Yes, I agree. This type of creationist would probably be miffed. However, the creationists who don't view matters that way won't.

[skeptigirl]

Here's a related story from Science News:

Ice Age Ends Smashingly: Did a comet blow up over eastern Canada? (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070602/fob1.asp)Evidence unearthed at more than two dozen sites across North America suggests that an extraterrestrial object exploded in Earth's atmosphere above Canada about 12,900 years ago, just as the climate was warming at the end of the last ice age. The explosion sparked immense wildfires, devastated North America's ecosystems and prehistoric cultures, and triggered a millennium-long cold spell, scientists say

Here are some links (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070602/fob1ref.asp) from the article to related scientific papers. These look good. The blast was a different time but West and Firestone are mentioned as sources.

[skeptigirl]

Here's some more on the 12,900 year ago event and West's work.

Scientist who contends comet killed mammoths to speak Oct. 10 (http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2007-10/West_Allen.html) There's quite a bit of summary with the announcement.

[skeptigirl]

This is great, they are going to re-run the National Geographic program on this guy's work tomorrow.

Explorer: Mammoth Mystery (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ET/popup/200712122000.html)Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at 08P

Scientists have long debated one of the greatest mysteries of science: What caused the sudden mass extinction of mammoths 13,000 years ago? Now, Explorer: Mammoth Mystery gathers a team of investigators who may have found clues to why the mammoths, which reigned over the landscapes of North America for more than 1 million years, suddenly vanished. Could the clues point to the biggest cosmic impact humans have ever witnessed?

Also airs:
Wednesday, December 12, 11P
Sunday, December 16, 2P

Sigh, I don't get that channel. I wonder if it will be on any PBS channels.

[Badger]

If you look at the Tunguska event it's easy to conceive of an animal being at just the right distance to survive (or be killed but not consumed by heat) and receive these fragments. Most meteoric material falls at terminal velocity sometimes after shattering before hitting the ground. I believe only larger meteorites make it through the atmosphere and impact the ground at speeds > terminal velocity. But the Tunguska event shows clearly that the above ground explosion created a shock wave that blew down trees the same way exploding gases from Mt St Helen's knocked down thousands of trees.

What seems most amazing to me is that these animals were within blasting range of the meteor. Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.....

From the picture which looks like a meteorite, the analysis of nickel iron which indicates a meteorite, the fact there are two specimens on two continents decreasing the odds of fraud, and, it was presented at a scientific conference, I find the story very credible.


Science is so much funner than woo, isn't it?

Do you have a link to information you refer to about animals surviving the Tunguska event? I can't find anything even remotely proposing that.

[devnull]

Just a little jest about the dinosaur track finds in Texas with human footprints in side them. What if a creationist had found these first? Would we have heard about early man carrying shotguns?


You forgot that a schism of some little known cult would claim that the shotguns were provided by aliens.

[MG1962]

buckshot huh - proves my point - the 2nd ammendment has a typo in it - Should read, right to arm bears :p

[CFLarsen]

Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?

[Big Les]

If you read the article, they aren't actually suggesting that either animal was killed by this shower of meteorites, just that one was definitely alive at the time and for a while afterward because of post-injury tissue growth.

[CFLarsen]

If you read the article, they aren't actually suggesting that either animal was killed by this shower of meteorites, just that one was definitely alive at the time and for a while afterward because of post-injury tissue growth.

I'm asking shadron.

[athon]

I'm asking shadron.

Christ you can be a rude bastard, Claus. I'm not sure if you meant to come across that way...but you do.

Shadron made no such assertion - he was recalling what he thought the radio program said. There's no woo you need to defeat here, so no need to jump on Shadron's case. Big Les graciously explained to what the article says.

Athon

[-Fran-]

If you read the article, they aren't actually suggesting that either animal was killed by this shower of meteorites, just that one was definitely alive at the time and for a while afterward because of post-injury tissue growth.

I'm asking shadron.

How dare you speak to Claus when he has not addressed you directly, Big Les? ;)

[AgeGap]

I wonder about things like terminal velocity and shock waves.
I feel the use of the term terminal velocity is a bit of a red herring. If an object is dropped from a height it will accelerate until it reaches the terminal velocity. If it has a greater starting velocity downwards it will slow until it reaches its terminal velocity (or hit a mammoths tusk). Think of firing buckshot downwards. It will travel well in excess of its terminal velocity.

BTW: Cool thread title, you should be in advertising.

[CFLarsen]

Christ you can be a rude bastard, Claus. I'm not sure if you meant to come across that way...but you do.

Shadron made no such assertion - he was recalling what he thought the radio program said. There's no woo you need to defeat here, so no need to jump on Shadron's case. Big Les graciously explained to what the article says.

Athon

I am asking if the program said anything about how the mammoth got killed by the explosion, if the part of the asteroid was lodged in the tusk. Did the program explain how?

If you see that as being rude, perhaps you should start asking yourself if you aren't just a wee bit paranoid.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Keep an eye on AiG's news page. I'm sure, if they see the article, they'll quote it out of context somehow.

[robinson]

I just watched the National Geographic Explorer episode about this, even recorded it on DVR. It first aired Dec 11 2007 at 12 a.m. here in the States.

It is an hour long documentary, went through the years of research a group has been doing. There is evidence of an impact event 13,000 years ago, suspected of causing a climate change, and they found another impact 35,000 years ago as well.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ET/popup/200712122000.html
http://www.422.com/gallery/article/98/1

Interesting stuff.

[shadron]

I'm asking shadron.

...and Shadron is replying that I have no idea why it was worded that way in the report and in the news article (it was a 30 second article from the BBC's standard on-the-hour news) I heard, but it did say that that the Bison lived on, presumably because the skull bone, being live, grew over the wounds, while the tusk, being dead upon extrusion from the skull, didn't have the option of indicating the state of it's wearer after the event. It is possible they both lived afterwards. In the content of the article, there is just no way to know.

Last I heard, I don't run the BBC, nor direct the scientists who made the original report. If I did, I'd probably had them read the whole report :).

[CFLarsen]

...and Shadron is replying that I have no idea why it was worded that way in the report and in the news article (it was a 30 second article from the BBC's standard on-the-hour news) I heard, but it did say that that the Bison lived on, presumably because the skull bone, being live, grew over the wounds, while the tusk, being dead upon extrusion from the skull, didn't have the option of indicating the state of it's wearer after the event. It is possible they both lived afterwards. In the content of the article, there is just no way to know.

Last I heard, I don't run the BBC, nor direct the scientists who made the original report. If I did, I'd probably had them read the whole report :).

I would say that that's kind of crucial to know.

Sloppy reporters.

[Correa Neto]

Good and sound reason to keep an eye in the sky and the technologies to avoid or minimize the effects of an impact.

[skeptigirl]

Do you have a link to information you refer to about animals surviving the Tunguska event? I can't find anything even remotely proposing that.There were human eye-witnesses who were knocked down by the blast, but far enough away to have not been seriously harmed. I've seen them interviewed on one of the TV specials on the event.

So I'm just saying it would be unquestionably possible. The researchers, though, also note the mammoth tusks could have simply been exposed long after the animals died. But the bison lived on so that is a different story.

Here are some transcripts of the interviews, (http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html) I can't vouch for the reliability of the web author but the transcripts are about right.The Russians collected a number of accounts from eyewitnesses at the trading station, which was probably the closest permanent habitation. These included:

"I was sitting on the porch of the house at the trading station, looking north. Suddenly in the north...the sky was split in two, and high above the forest the whole northern part of the sky appeared covered with fire. I felt a great heat, as if my shirt had caught fire... At that moment there was a bang in the sky, and a mighty crash... I was thrown twenty feet from the porch and lost consciousness for a moment.... The crash was followed by a noise like stones falling from the sky, or guns firing. The earth trembled.... At the moment when the sky opened, a hot wind, as if from a cannon, blew past the huts from the north. It damaged the onion plants. Later, we found that many panes in the windows had been blown out and the iron hasp in the barn door had been broken."

A second witness said:

"I saw the sky in the north open to the ground and fire poured out. The fire was brighter than the sun. We were terrified, but the sky closed again and immediately afterward, bangs like gunshots were heard. We thought stones were falling... I ran with my head down and covered, because I was afraid stones may fall on it."

[skeptigirl]

Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments. :rolleyes:

[skeptigirl]

I would say that that's kind of crucial to know.

Sloppy reporters.It appears several of you didn't look at the links I posted which went into considerably more detail than the BBC news report.

See posts 13, 14 & 15.

[skeptigirl]

I started to post this last night about the YEC response to the mammoth program (not to the latest research but I'm sure we can expect more of the same) but my Internet connection crashed for some mysterious reason so I just went to bed.

You ask about the YEC reaction, Great “Mammoth Mystery” of End of Ice Age Extinctions by Catastrophic Climate Change Investigated by National Geographic Explorer but Doesn’t Consider Warmer Ocean Engine for Ice Age (http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/great-mammoth-mystery-of-end-of-ice-age-extinctions-by-catastrophic-climate-change-investigated-by-national-geographic-explorer-but-doesnt-consider-warmer-ocean-engine-for-ice-age/)They say the mammoths (just elephants) became extinct circa 10000 B.C., but mammoths were reported in the Black Sea region circa 2000 B.C., and mammoth bone tools are associated with Bronze Age sites there, so National Geographic missed the mark on this one. And remember, Bronze Age Atlantis (see Category Atlantis Revealed), Plato describing the plain of southern Spain, south of the Sierra Morena Mountains, said that many large animals lived there in the lush fruitful environment (much more rain during the Ice Age), among them elephants, and so too then in England, during the Ice Age, when Stonehenge and the other great megalithic complexes were being built in western Europe, below the snowline of the Ice Age icepacks.

:dl:

[shadron]

It has been established that pygmy mammoths lived on Wrangel Island (in the Arctic Ocean) up to 2500BC.

[hgc]

... pygmy mammoths ...


That made me smile. Little big pachyderms, indeed.

[NoZed Avenger]

That made me smile. Little big pachyderms, indeed.

You'll find them in frozen foods, next to the Jumbo Shrimp.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments. :rolleyes:


"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7130014.stm)

Explain, please.

It appears several of you didn't look at the links I posted which went into considerably more detail than the BBC news report.

See posts 13, 14 & 15.

Which are about a meteor blast from 12,900-13,000 years ago. The OP is about a meteor blast from 35,000 years ago.

[Correa Neto]

Woos are already claiming it vindicates their beliefs...
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mammoths-space/

Such as the "instant freezing" of megafauna animals...

[shadron]

"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
Explain, please.

Since I'm the one who placed the quote, I'll explain that bone in a living animal is living tissue. Bone cells continually arrange and rearrange the calcium salt crystals which make up the hard load-bearing structure of bone; they do that for injury, as in a broken bone, and in response to changing stress, as when the astronauts in extended weightlessness loose bone mass. Any injury that physically damages a bone is eventually repaired or "paved over" with new bone. My son has a screw in his elbow from a childhood accident; at twenty, surgery to remove the screw failed because it had been locked in by bone growth around it. In the photomicrograph that accompanies the quote (from Dr. Firestone of the Berkeley Livermore Labs) the "nugget" of metal has been encased with bone growth; compare to the photos of the tusk embedment.

[CFLarsen]

Since I'm the one who placed the quote, I'll explain that bone in a living animal is living tissue. Bone cells continually arrange and rearrange the calcium salt crystals which make up the hard load-bearing structure of bone; they do that for injury, as in a broken bone, and in response to changing stress, as when the astronauts in extended weightlessness loose bone mass. Any injury that physically damages a bone is eventually repaired or "paved over" with new bone. My son has a screw in his elbow from a childhood accident; at twenty, surgery to remove the screw failed because it had been locked in by bone growth around it. In the photomicrograph that accompanies the quote (from Dr. Firestone of the Berkeley Livermore Labs) the "nugget" of metal has been encased with bone growth; compare to the photos of the tusk embedment.

Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.

But thanks, anyway!

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm not skeptigirl, but I don't see where she said all the animals were killed. In fact, she first says that it's not hard to imagine one surviving. If one survived to regrow bone, obviously it wasn't killed.

[skeptigirl]

Explain, please.Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about.

Which are about a meteor blast from 12,900-13,000 years ago. The OP is about a meteor blast from 35,000 years ago.See posts 13, 14 & 15. The links I posted are by the SAME researcher on the SAME subject, discussing the hypothesis which led him to look for the fragments in the first place and I posted a link to the Science News article on this research which gives more info than the BBC article.

Just what is it you are bothered about from this science? Seems pretty well documented events and a strongly supported hypothesis. Perhaps if you'd elaborate on your issues it would explain what part of the story you are missing.

[skeptigirl]

Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.

But thanks, anyway!No, you askedWhy would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?The mammoths did not have new bone growth after the fragments, only the BISON did. Maybe you should either be nicer or post more carefully. Being snotty and wrong doesn't look too good.

[robinson]

For those who can't watch the NatGeo special, there is video of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Press Conference about this. 7 parts, on Google or Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o&feature=related

A lot more information, but boring compared to the hour special, which I have watched twice now. Fascinating stuff.

NatGeo on this, on Youtube-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrxFAFL-oc

[fishbob]

Just a little jest about the dinosaur track finds in Texas with human footprints in side them. (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm) What if a creationist had found these first?

They did:
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens

From your link.

[CFLarsen]

Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about.

See posts 13, 14 & 15. The links I posted are by the SAME researcher on the SAME subject, discussing the hypothesis which led him to look for the fragments in the first place and I posted a link to the Science News article on this research which gives more info than the BBC article.

Just what is it you are bothered about from this science? Seems pretty well documented events and a strongly supported hypothesis. Perhaps if you'd elaborate on your issues it would explain what part of the story you are missing.

I'm not bothered at all by anything from this science. What gave you that idea?

No, you asked

The mammoths did not have new bone growth after the fragments, only the BISON did. Maybe you should either be nicer or post more carefully. Being snotty and wrong doesn't look too good.

I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

[skeptigirl]

Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.

You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.

In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:

"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?

You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?

How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?

[m_huber]

It has been established that pygmy mammoths lived on Wrangel Island (in the Arctic Ocean) up to 2500BC.

There were several mammoth refugia, but the species rapidly declined at the beginning of the Holocene. I've heard local tales in Mississippi about Native Americans hunting mammoths until shortly before white folks arrived, but I have never seen anything to validate such stories.

I hate citing Wikipedia, but this is the most concise source that I can find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

You can google "Mammoth refugia" and get lots of journal articles citing specific places where mammoths lived longer.

[ChaoticLimbs]

How does creationism fit into this scenario?
This mammoth was clearly an abomination before the Lord, and was smitten by Him. There ya go.

[skeptigirl]

In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:



How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?



How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?


You yourself asked how could the fragments embedded in the tusks kill the mammoths, then you turn around and ask how could the Bison have survived. And all the while you ignored everything I posted.

Maybe if I shout and spell it out ....

HUMANS SURVIVED THE TUNGUSKA BLAST YET WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN. THEY GAVE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BEING KNOCKED DOWN AND OBVIOUSLY THEY LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT.

THE BLAST CAN KILL. THOUSANDS OF TREES WERE KNOCKED FLAT. SURELY MOST IF NOT ALL THE ANIMALS WITHIN RANGE OF THE TREE FALL WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

THE AIR BLAST AT TUNGUSKA RESULTED FROM AN OBJECT FROM SPACE SHATTERING FROM THE SHOCK WAVE AS IT ENTERED THE ATMOSPHERE. THE OBJECT THAT SHATTERED HAD SOME KIND OF MASS. SOME OF THE FRAGMENTS WOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE AIR BLAST. I BELIEVE THOSE FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND EMBEDDED IN TREES.

EVEN IF THE TUNGUSKA FRAGMENTS WERE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN THE TUSKS AND THE BISON SKELETON, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE LINKS I POSTED ON THE WORK WHICH LED UP TO THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES, YOU'D HAVE SEEN THAT THE RESEARCHERS FOUND SIMILAR METEORITE FRAGMENTS IN THE GROUND LAYERS BEFORE LOOKING FOR THEM IN THE TUSKS.

So just what is your problem?

[skeptigirl]

Here are some more links:

Ancient Meteor Blast Peppered Mammoths With "Shrapnel" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-mammoths-meteor.html)Anne Minard in San Francisco, California for National Geographic News; December 14, 2007

An ancient meteor impact in North America sent up waves of rock fragments that peppered prehistoric mammals with "space shrapnel" about 34,000 years ago, scientists say.

...

That's the story being pieced together by a research team led by Richard Firestone of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

The team had done previous work on a suspected impact that occurred 13,000 years ago. But while looking for evidence of that more recent blast in mammoth tusks, the scientists found traces of the much older event.

"The surprise was the tusks were dating back to 30,000 to 34,000 years ago," Firestone said.

"Nobody had thought of it before. It was serendipitous."



Mammoth tusks show up meteorite shower (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071212/full/news.2007.372.html)The dating showed that most of the tusks were 30,000 to 34,000 years old, and so not relevant to their theory about the end of the Clovis people (for more on that theory, see Blast in the past?). One tusk dated to 21,000 years ago, and the bison skull to 26,000 years old, but Firestone thinks that the dating of these specimens might have been affected by contamination of the samples. Future work, he thinks, will probably show them to be from the same meteorite shower as the other samples. They plan to refine the dates on all specimens as they move towards publication.

Firestone and his colleagues note that other scientists have found evidence that the populations of some large mammals — such as bison, horses and mammoths — declined about 34,000 years ago. That could go well with a theory of a meteor impact at that time.



Related article from a couple weeks earlier, The end of an (ice) age - A group of University scientists have proposed a controversial new theory about the end of the last ice age (http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/11/28/News/The-End.Of.An.ice.Age-3119506.shtml)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It looks like the cryptozoologists beat the creationists to it... (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mammoths-space)

[athon]

For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?


Claus is out for a fight. I'd recommend simply ignoring his nonsense. Rising to it makes it look like there is an argument to be had. The rest of us see it for what it is.

Thanks for your links though, skeptigirl. I used this story on my program today and made for a decent discussion with my guests.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?

It isn't me who mistook bison for mammoth.

How can you not have noticed the "bison" in my quote?

You yourself asked how could the fragments embedded in the tusks kill the mammoths, then you turn around and ask how could the Bison have survived. And all the while you ignored everything I posted.

Maybe if I shout and spell it out ....

HUMANS SURVIVED THE TUNGUSKA BLAST YET WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN. THEY GAVE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BEING KNOCKED DOWN AND OBVIOUSLY THEY LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT.

THE BLAST CAN KILL. THOUSANDS OF TREES WERE KNOCKED FLAT. SURELY MOST IF NOT ALL THE ANIMALS WITHIN RANGE OF THE TREE FALL WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

THE AIR BLAST AT TUNGUSKA RESULTED FROM AN OBJECT FROM SPACE SHATTERING FROM THE SHOCK WAVE AS IT ENTERED THE ATMOSPHERE. THE OBJECT THAT SHATTERED HAD SOME KIND OF MASS. SOME OF THE FRAGMENTS WOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE AIR BLAST. I BELIEVE THOSE FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND EMBEDDED IN TREES.

EVEN IF THE TUNGUSKA FRAGMENTS WERE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN THE TUSKS AND THE BISON SKELETON, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE LINKS I POSTED ON THE WORK WHICH LED UP TO THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES, YOU'D HAVE SEEN THAT THE RESEARCHERS FOUND SIMILAR METEORITE FRAGMENTS IN THE GROUND LAYERS BEFORE LOOKING FOR THEM IN THE TUSKS.

So just what is your problem?


No need to shout.

I don't have a problem. You do.

You are saying that shrapnel can travel further than the deadly air blast. Somehow, the shrapnel found a way to travel from the site of impact to the bison - without being carried by the blast.

[NoZed Avenger]

You are saying that shrapnel can travel further than the deadly air blast. Somehow, the shrapnel found a way to travel from the site of impact to the bison - without being carried by the blast.


Rarely have I seen a more clearly presented fallacy.



So, even though the above is "just a question" and you are "not making a claim" about the airblast, let me ask this to clarify:


Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking? I ask only because without that underlying premise, your question is nonsensical, so let's just get that out of the way officially.

[CFLarsen]

Rarely have I seen a more clearly presented fallacy.



So, even though the above is "just a question" and you are "not making a claim" about the airblast, let me ask this to clarify:


Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking? I ask only because without that underlying premise, your question is nonsensical, so let's just get that out of the way officially.

What is it about "blast" you don't get?

[athon]

Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?
Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments. :rolleyes:
Explain, please.
I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.
I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.
Note that skeptigirl said nothing of any bison, but responded only to Claus's first question about the mammoth.

Claus then introduces the comment about the bison as "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." Which has nothing to do with a dead mammoth or how meteorite fragments in a mammoth's tusk would kill a mammoth.

Then he says:

How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?

Well, considering you asked how a mammoth could be killed by asteroid chunks hitting its tusk, with skeptigirl responding that it could have something to do not so much with the asteroid chunks in the tusk but the blast that might well have accompanied it...

Not to mention the question itself was pretty bloody ridiculous. Why couldn't the mammoth have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone? Who knows? It's not such a complexing question to wonder how the mammoth died.

How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?Now...this was a follow-up question later introduced by Claus which was not present when skeptigirl first responded. He then accuses her of getting confused by the bison and the mammoth - when it was he who slipped in the quote "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Insane just doesn't cover it.

More dishonest tactics. More lies. And worse yet, over what? No woo here, no bad science. Just an interesting discussion.

:rolleyes: Seriously Claus, this as trolling as behaviour gets.

But I'm sure you'll evade with another lie. I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Athon

[athon]

What is it about "blast" you don't get?

So, do you seriously think that 'blast' insinuates the air is being propelled with the same force over the same distance as the asteroid shrapnel? Have you any comprehension of physics at all?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Note that skeptigirl said nothing of any bison, but responded only to Claus's first question about the mammoth.

Note that I mention the bison later.

Claus then introduces the comment about the bison as "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." Which has nothing to do with a dead mammoth or how meteorite fragments in a mammoth's tusk would kill a mammoth.

I didn't claim it had.

Well, considering you asked how a mammoth could be killed by asteroid chunks hitting its tusk, with skeptigirl responding that it could have something to do not so much with the asteroid chunks in the tusk but the blast that might well have accompanied it...

No, no, no. I asked skeptigirl how she could possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth" in the quote I posted in post #38.

Not to mention the question itself was pretty bloody ridiculous. Why couldn't the mammoth have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone? Who knows? It's not such a complexing question to wonder how the mammoth died.

Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Now...this was a follow-up question later introduced by Claus which was not present when skeptigirl first responded. He then accuses her of getting confused by the bison and the mammoth - when it was he who slipped in the quote "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Insane just doesn't cover it.

More dishonest tactics. More lies. And worse yet, over what? No woo here, no bad science. Just an interesting discussion.

:rolleyes: Seriously Claus, this as trolling as behaviour gets.

But I'm sure you'll evade with another lie. I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Oh, I see.

I'm insane, dishonest, trolling and lying, because I manage to "slip in" a quote about the bison.

Yes, that was really devious of me.

So, do you seriously think that 'blast' insinuates the air is being propelled with the same force over the same distance as the asteroid shrapnel?

Of course not.

[NoZed Avenger]

What is it about "blast" you don't get?

That is not a direct answer to the question, but merely has the reader fill in the answer by insinuation. Please answer the question(s) in a direct manner, so that there are no misunderstandings regarding your position:

Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking?

[CFLarsen]

That is not a direct answer to the question, but merely has the reader fill in the answer by insinuation.

Not at all.

Read my post again, and see if you can spot "blast".

[fuelair]

In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:



How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?



How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?
Don't know, wasn't there. Ask Dick Cheney's buddy - he got hit by the fragments but wasn't killed by the blast. Good enough for puny humans, good enough for big, hairy, bison.:D

[qayak]

I'm insane, dishonest, trolling and lying . . .

Yes.

[qayak]

How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?

From the reports of the 1917 Halifax Harbour Explosion: "A portion of Mont-Blanc's anchor shaft, weighing 517 kilograms (1140 lb) was thrown 3.78 kilometres (2.35 mi) west of the blast on the far side of the Northwest Arm, while a gun barrel landed in Dartmouth, over 5.5 kilometers (3.5 mi) east, near Albro Lake."

You see Claus, it is quite easy for fragments to travel farther than the blast.

As for the ridiculous question about how shrapnel in a tusk can kill a mammoth, it isn't hard to imagine that if there was shrapnel in the tusk then more would have been in the body but seeing as we only have the tusk to examine we wouldn't really know, would we? We also wouldn't know if the mammoth survived, as the article says, because we only have the tusk and even if the mammoth survived, tusks don't heal.

There is a report in this month's Discover magazine about this. Number 75 of their Top 100 Stories for 2007. It suggests that this blast accounts for the extinction of the Clovis culture of North America, the animals they hunted. and much of the plant life.

There is evidence of this "shrapnel" from 50 sites in North America along with charcoal to indicate that vast forest fires destroyed what the blast and shrapnel didn't.

Indications are that the impact would have been around the Great Lakes which were covered by the Laurentide Ice Sheet at the time which may account for the lack of a crater. Or it may have exploded before impacting the Earth which would also account for it.

As Douglas Kennett is quoted as saying, "Think about it - people would have seen it coming. This was a bad day."

[skeptigirl]

Thank you athon and gayak. But as athon predicted, Claus again evades actually joining the discussion in favor of whatever satisfaction he derives from his twisted posts.

For whatever reason, Claus, even when we show you exactly why your posts and questions were unclear and consist of some twisted thought process only you can follow, you just can't see that it is your means of communicating that is the problem. It is your failure to actually type out the thoughts in your head. Somehow, we are supposed to know what those thoughts are.

You said, "Explain please" apparently intending to ask a completely different question while quoting the question I had answered. How in bloody he!! was anyone supposed to know what you meant?

And in fact, I said as much. I said, "Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about."

And I posted it after shadron also couldn't figure out what you were asking. Only then did you clarify you were asking a completely new question. How do you suppose anyone knew you meant a completely different question when all you wrote was, "Explain please"?

But I already tried to tell you this. Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.

You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?Not only do my answers have ZERO to do with mistaking a bison for a mammoth, but I clearly explained why no one here knew what you meant by "Explain please".

You think, "the quote clearly said" your question. No it did not clearly say what you meant. To those of us who have normal thought processes, we didn't hear the voices in your head say the rest of the question which would have looked something like this:

The injuries in the mammoth tusks weren't fatal. The blast from the meteorite could have been fatal. The bison's injuries were not fatal. So then, here's the question, Claus, that would have made your thought processes apparent to the rest of us: So why wouldn't the blast have also killed the bison?

Maybe when people tell you they don't understand your question, you might consider simply explaining what you meant instead of acting like the back end of a horse.

Stop with your nonsensical rationalizations for why we all should have understood your question. NO ONE UNDERSTOOD IT. That's a clue, Claus, you don't communicate, then you fault people for not reading your mind. Last I checked, this whole organization is partially about debunking the claim anyone can read minds. Posting foolish claims we are all stupid for not reading the secret thoughts behind your two word quips doesn't win you any gotcha points. All it does is wreck an otherwise interesting discussion.

[skeptigirl]

And now you are doing the same with NoZed Avenger.

Just imagine how much less time you'd spend typing on your keyboard if you actually posted normal exchanges with people in the first place. All that typing to justify incomplete quips and thoughts, seems to defeat the purpose.

[CFLarsen]

From the reports of the 1917 Halifax Harbour Explosion: "A portion of Mont-Blanc's anchor shaft, weighing 517 kilograms (1140 lb) was thrown 3.78 kilometres (2.35 mi) west of the blast on the far side of the Northwest Arm, while a gun barrel landed in Dartmouth, over 5.5 kilometers (3.5 mi) east, near Albro Lake."

You see Claus, it is quite easy for fragments to travel farther than the blast.

The blast from Krakatoa: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatau)

The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice [2], and generated the loudest sound historically reported: the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia approx. 1,930 miles (3,110 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius approx. 3,000 miles (5,000 km).

The explosions were so violent that they were heard 2,200 miles (3,500 km) away in Australia and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, 4,800 km away; the sound of Krakatoa's destruction is believed to be the loudest sound in recorded history, reaching levels of 180 dBSPL 100 miles (160 km) away.[4]

And yet, fragments did not go as far as the blast:

Ash was propelled to a height of 50 miles (80 km).

As for the ridiculous question about how shrapnel in a tusk can kill a mammoth, it isn't hard to imagine that if there was shrapnel in the tusk then more would have been in the body but seeing as we only have the tusk to examine we wouldn't really know, would we? We also wouldn't know if the mammoth survived, as the article says, because we only have the tusk and even if the mammoth survived, tusks don't heal.

That's precisely why the question isn't ridiculous: Why assume that the impact was the cause of death?

Thank you athon and gayak. But as athon predicted, Claus again evades actually joining the discussion in favor of whatever satisfaction he derives from his twisted posts.

For whatever reason, Claus, even when we show you exactly why your posts and questions were unclear and consist of some twisted thought process only you can follow, you just can't see that it is your means of communicating that is the problem. It is your failure to actually type out the thoughts in your head. Somehow, we are supposed to know what those thoughts are.

You said, "Explain please" apparently intending to ask a completely different question while quoting the question I had answered. How in bloody he!! was anyone supposed to know what you meant?

And in fact, I said as much. I said, "Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about."

And I posted it after shadron also couldn't figure out what you were asking. Only then did you clarify you were asking a completely new question. How do you suppose anyone knew you meant a completely different question when all you wrote was, "Explain please"?

But I already tried to tell you this. Not only do my answers have ZERO to do with mistaking a bison for a mammoth, but I clearly explained why no one here knew what you meant by "Explain please".

You think, "the quote clearly said" your question. No it did not clearly say what you meant. To those of us who have normal thought processes, we didn't hear the voices in your head say the rest of the question which would have looked something like this:

You are very busy talking around the issue. Please answer this very simple question:

How can you possibly have missed "bison" in the quote I provided?

The injuries in the mammoth tusks weren't fatal.

How do you know that?

The blast from the meteorite could have been fatal. The bison's injuries were not fatal. So then, here's the question, Claus, that would have made your thought processes apparent to the rest of us: So why wouldn't the blast have also killed the bison?

Because the bison lived on?

[athon]

Note that I mention the bison later.

That's right. You mention it. Not skeptigirl.

I didn't claim it had.

By bringing up the bison quote when asking skeptigirl about the mammoth, you do. Or is this another Claus word game?

No, no, no. I asked skeptigirl how she could possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth" in the quote I posted in post #38.

She didn't. You did. You mentioned the bison directly after asking about the mammoth. You then cryptically ask 'explain please', assuming in your own mind she knows that you're insinuating the bison...when nobody has any clue as to that notion.

You're either really daft, really bad at communicating or being dishonest. Take your pick. My money is on the third option...but feel free to correct me.

Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Where did you consider it as an obvious option? More Claus word games.

Oh, I see.

I'm insane, dishonest, trolling and lying, because I manage to "slip in" a quote about the bison.

Umm...actually, yeah.

Of course not.

Then what prompted you to ask the question?

Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

That's right. You mention it. Not skeptigirl.

Yeah.

By bringing up the bison quote when asking skeptigirl about the mammoth, you do. Or is this another Claus word game?

No, I don't.

She didn't. You did. You mentioned the bison directly after asking about the mammoth. You then cryptically ask 'explain please', assuming in your own mind she knows that you're insinuating the bison...when nobody has any clue as to that notion.

When I specifically mention the bison, it is because I want to talk about the bison.

I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth, when I talk about the bison. But maybe I am just playing "word games".

You're either really daft, really bad at communicating or being dishonest. Take your pick. My money is on the third option...but feel free to correct me.

It seems you leave no option for me being neither. I just have to have sinister motives.

Where did you consider it as an obvious option? More Claus word games.

Answer the question, please: Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Umm...actually, yeah.

I "manage" to "slip in" a quote?

What kind of criticism is that?

Then what prompted you to ask the question?

Why do you automatically assume that I have to have sinister motives whenever I ask a question? I just asked a question!

Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?

Why don't you focus on the argument instead of the arguer?

[skeptigirl]

How can you possibly have missed "bison" in the quote I provided?I didn't.

[qayak]

And yet, fragments did not go as far as the blast:

Did you read that article Claus? They certainly did. You are also mistaking the distance the sound travelled for the destructive area of the blast.

That's precisely why the question isn't ridiculous: Why assume that the impact was the cause of death?

Obviously you didn't read the article. Here is what it said in regard to the death of the mammoths: "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Notice, the article didn't mention whether the mammoths lived or not. Notice how it said that they went looking for the tusks at a sale in Arizona. The tusks had been collected in alaska and the bison skull in Siberia.

[hgc]

For anyone who's ever seen Carl Reiner's All of Me, with Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin, it's pretty clear what's going on here. Claus has, through some Tibetan ritual, absorbed the soul of Interesting Ian. Now that both beings inhabit the body that has access to the CFLarsen login, you get the strangest things happening.

[athon]

When I specifically mention the bison, it is because I want to talk about the bison.

I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth, when I talk about the bison. But maybe I am just playing "word games".

The lies are amazing. Seriously amazing. 'I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth.' Christ.

Go back and look at post number 59. As I showed, you asked skeptigirl about the mammoth...and then summon a quote about the bison. Nobody has any idea why, but there you go. You do, and think you're as clear as day. You're on your own on that one, though.

It seems you leave no option for me being neither. I just have to have sinister motives.

CFL mode/ I didn't say you had sinister motives. Point out where I said you have sinister motives./CFL mode :rolleyes:

Answer the question, please: Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Where did I suggest you rejected it?

Why do you automatically assume that I have to have sinister motives whenever I ask a question? I just asked a question!

Again; do you honestly not see the impact your questions have? Maybe it's not dishonest motives - maybe you really are a poor communicator who can't predict the impact his choice of words will have. In which case I gave you more credence than you ever deserved.

Why don't you focus on the argument instead of the arguer?

:rolleyes: I'm discussing the behaviour of the arguer in relevance to the topic. It's perfectly legit. If not, report the post and have it moved.

Now, do you have an answer to 'Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?'

Athon

[robinson]

I went back and checked, I understand what CF was asking about. It isn't even that hard to figure out.

[skeptigirl]

I went back and checked, I understand what CF was asking about. It isn't even that hard to figure out.In hindsight, the rest of us get it too. This is not news, rob.

[NoZed Avenger]

Not at all.

Read my post again, and see if you can spot "blast".

Read my question again, and see if you can actually "answer."

[athon]

I went back and checked, I understand what CF was asking about. It isn't even that hard to figure out.

Working backwards, we can piece it together. I don't think anybody is left scratching their heads any more.

The point is, imagine the conversation verbalised. Claus comes across as arrogant and rude, not to mention assumptive that everybody gets what he is on about (which few do at first, due to his brusque demeanour). Eventually it is apparent he is asking something fairly simple which could have been phrased in a way that didn't come across as belligerant. He then stands back and says 'I was just asking a question'.

I have students just like it. They often make a remark, pushing for a fight, then claim innocence of their tone by asking what precisely they did wrong.

It's pathetic. Nice thread which had some interesting stuff, only to have a troll waltz in and act like a twat.

I think Claus has taken his super-skeptic persona so far he feels everything deserves to be debunked.

Athon

[Badger]

I predict someone will start a semantic argument over the definition of the word "blast". I predict this thread will stretch to 18 pages. You can paypal me my $million.

[athon]

I predict someone will start a semantic argument over the definition of the word "blast". I predict this thread will stretch to 18 pages. You can paypal me my $million.

Haha. I had another couple of words picked out that Claus would fight over. It's sad when it gets this predictable.

Sorry mate. No million for you.

Athon

[robinson]

Having watched the NatGeo special, as well as the material on Youtube from the same scientist, I understood a lot about this before the OP, which is very limited.
It is understandable, based on the first few post, that CF would ask questions. I tend to avoid tar pits in online discussions, but now that it seems to be over, the really cool part of this is where the cosmic buckshot came from.

They talked about this on the NatGeo special.

Now, a supernova may join the lineup. Firestone and West believe that debris from a supernova explosion coalesced into low-density, comet-like objects that wreaked havoc on the solar system long ago. One such comet may have hit North America 13,000 years ago, unleashing a cataclysmic event that killed off the vast majority of mammoths and many other large North American mammals. They found evidence of this impact layer at several archaeological sites throughout North America where Clovis hunting artifacts and human-butchered mammoths have been unearthed. It has long been established that human activity ceased at these sites about 13,000 years ago, which is roughly the same time that mammoths disappeared.

They also found evidence of the supernova explosion's initial shockwave: 34,000-year-old mammoth tusks that are peppered with tiny impact craters apparently produced by iron-rich grains traveling at an estimated 10,000 kilometers per second. These grains may have been emitted from a supernova that exploded roughly 7,000 years earlier and about 250 light years from Earth.

"Our research indicates that a 10-kilometer-wide comet, which may have been composed from the remnants of a supernova explosion, could have hit North America 13,000 years ago," says Firestone. "This event was preceded by an intense blast of iron-rich grains that impacted the planet roughly 34,000 years ago."

In support of the comet impact, Firestone and West found magnetic metal spherules in the sediment of nine 13,000-year-old Clovis sites in Michigan, Canada, Arizona, New Mexico and the Carolinas. Low-density carbon spherules, charcoal, and excess radioactivity were also found at these sites.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17893

[robinson]

It was the climate change, not the impact, that is believed to have led to the extinction of Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Wooly Rhinos, all kind of cool beasts, that all went extinct in the very recent past.

[qayak]

It was the climate change, not the impact, that is believed to have led to the extinction of Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Wooly Rhinos, all kind of cool beasts, that all went extinct in the very recent past.

The article I have says the climate change, along with the fires, which led to the extinctions, were a result of the impact.

[robinson]

Yes.

From the NatGeo show - A diverse group of geologist, chemist and cosmic impact experts have banded together, attempting to put together the evidence for a cosmic impact, that led to the extinction of the Mammoths. It is highly controversial, and they think a super nova caused both events, the 13,000 year old impact, which caused climate change, right as the ice age was ending, as well as another event 35,000 years earlier.

It alos wiped out the Clovis people in North America. It is complicated, complex, and involves all kinds of science and evidence from all over.

I've watched the show twice now, and it is difficult to type it out. Watching the special is pretty dang cool. I'm watching it again right now, as I type this.

[athon]

Cool. I'll need to look out for it. I don't suppose there's anything downloadable online?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

I didn't.

Then how can you possibly think I was asking you about the mammoth?

Did you read that article Claus? They certainly did. You are also mistaking the distance the sound travelled for the destructive area of the blast.

Moving the goalposts: Now it has to be the destructive area of the blast.

Obviously you didn't read the article. Here is what it said in regard to the death of the mammoths: "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

I am not questioning why the bison survived.

The lies are amazing. Seriously amazing. 'I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth.' Christ.

Go back and look at post number 59. As I showed, you asked skeptigirl about the mammoth...and then summon a quote about the bison. Nobody has any idea why, but there you go. You do, and think you're as clear as day. You're on your own on that one, though.

Go back and look at post number 38.

I "manage" to "slip in" a quote? What kind of criticism is that?

CFL mode/ I didn't say you had sinister motives. Point out where I said you have sinister motives./CFL mode :rolleyes:

None of the options leave me with other motives.

Where did I suggest you rejected it?

You called my question "pretty bloody ridiculous"?

Again; do you honestly not see the impact your questions have? Maybe it's not dishonest motives - maybe you really are a poor communicator who can't predict the impact his choice of words will have. In which case I gave you more credence than you ever deserved.

Instead of attributing all sorts of bad characteristics, try to focus on what I argue.

:rolleyes: I'm discussing the behaviour of the arguer in relevance to the topic. It's perfectly legit. If not, report the post and have it moved.

Fascinating. You actually think a debater's behavior determines, at least to some degree, the validity of the argument.

Now, do you have an answer to 'Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?'

Working backwards, we can piece it together. I don't think anybody is left scratching their heads any more.

The point is, imagine the conversation verbalised. Claus comes across as arrogant and rude, not to mention assumptive that everybody gets what he is on about (which few do at first, due to his brusque demeanour). Eventually it is apparent he is asking something fairly simple which could have been phrased in a way that didn't come across as belligerant. He then stands back and says 'I was just asking a question'.

I have students just like it. They often make a remark, pushing for a fight, then claim innocence of their tone by asking what precisely they did wrong.

It's pathetic. Nice thread which had some interesting stuff, only to have a troll waltz in and act like a twat.

I think Claus has taken his super-skeptic persona so far he feels everything deserves to be debunked.

Athon

Focus on the argument, not the arguer.

[dogguy]

Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?

Ok, I have read this entire thread, including all of CFlarsen's off topic posturing, and I think I can now respond to this.

1. An object lodged in a mammoth's tusk (very likely) would not kill a mammoth.
2. No one posting in this thread has suggested that an object lodged in a mammoth's tusk did kill a mammoth.

Question for CFLarsen - Why did you ask this question?

[robinson]

Question for everyone interested in this topic.

Have you watched the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Press Conference?
Acapulco, Mexico, May 23, 2007
North American Comet Catastrophe 10,900 BC

I linked to it here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3246532#post3246532

This is the actual scientist involved, presenting evidence, including question and answer sessions, with a huge amount of information.

I keep thinking nobody here has, because the really interesting thing about this has little to do with Mammoths. If you watch the YouTube video, or the NatGeo special, this is obvious.

[robinson]

If, for some reason, you can't watch video on your computer, here is a paper to read.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.pdf
There is a bunch of stuff about this scattered all over the net. Not easy to find however.

[edit]

Aha! This site, which is poking holes int the theory, has a ton of references and links.
http://www.starburstfound.org/YDextinct/p1.html

[fuelair]

I predict someone will start a semantic argument over the definition of the word "blast". I predict this thread will stretch to 18 pages. You can paypal me my $million.
Actually, I was mulling this over because of Claus using the sound wave movement as blast. My personal opinion is that the blast - as used in the discussion by non-Claus persons - consisted of the destructive components of the explosion other than visible particles of matter (not including the matter directly involved in carrying pressure waves) [i.e. heat radiated, pressure transmitted was the blast ; visible to very large particles/chunks the matter] That eliminates sound/pressure waves not sufficient to damage/kill bison or mammoths.

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I have read this entire thread, including all of CFlarsen's off topic posturing, and I think I can now respond to this.

1. An object lodged in a mammoth's tusk (very likely) would not kill a mammoth.
2. No one posting in this thread has suggested that an object lodged in a mammoth's tusk did kill a mammoth.

Question for CFLarsen - Why did you ask this question?

Already explained:

I am asking if the program said anything about how the mammoth got killed by the explosion, if the part of the asteroid was lodged in the tusk. Did the program explain how?

[dogguy]

Already explained:

Ah, so now I see. A very poorly worded initial question was clarified by your second question. I would suggest that taking a little more time before posting to think out and clearly state your question(s) may result in considerably less misunderstanding (bickering) and more on-topic discussion.

[skepHick]

For anyone interested, the National Geographic Channel is re-running this episode again right now, 5:00 pm EST.


ETA: And if I see a mammoth with a tusk on a plain, I'll kill him.

[athon]

ETA: And if I see a mammoth with a tusk on a plain, I'll kill him.

:D:D:D

Athon

[athon]

Ah, so now I see. A very poorly worded initial question was clarified by your second question. I would suggest that taking a little more time before posting to think out and clearly state your question(s) may result in considerably less misunderstanding (bickering) and more on-topic discussion.

Ah, but that's attacking the arguer, and not the argument. :rolleyes:

Claus is getting worse in his old age, I swear.

Athon

[skeptigirl]

Then how can you possibly think I was asking you about the mammoth?... Focus on the argument, not the arguer.Well since you asked, and since you can't seem to figure out where you miscommunicated, let's look one more time then, shall we? Your actual questions are bolded.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?

Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments.
Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments.
"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." [link to source]Explain, please.
Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about. ....
Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.
...I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.You told shadron you were not asking why there was new bone growth, you were asking me why was there bone growth if the animal was killed. But we all know the bison wasn't killed and I certainly never said the bison was killed.

You have asked several times how I mixed up something I did not mix up.

Look at your posts Claus. You are asking me why the Bison had evidence of not being killed. But they weren't killed and no one ever said they were. You said, "Explain please" and "I asked you about the bison and bone growth".

Where in any of that miscommunication is there anything even remotely related to what your actual question was?

Stop with your insults about my supposedly not understanding your perfectly clear communication. Any more and I'll ask that those posts be tossed in the dungeon.

[CFLarsen]

Stop with your insults about my supposedly not understanding your perfectly clear communication. Any more and I'll ask that those posts be tossed in the dungeon.

Uh-oh! Schoolmar'm is mad! I'm so scared! :eek:

I'll repeat:

I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

[robinson]

I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

They don't really know. This entire new theory is very controversial. We do know that cosmic material was embedded by very high velocities, in mammoth tusks and bison skulls. It seems to have happened more than once. 35,000 and 12,900 years ago. Clovis points also have the same material in them from 12,900 years ago. It is highly suspected that many animals were killed by the shockwave, the firestorm, and the high velocity material. But, there are far more mysteries than facts at this point.

We don't know if the Mammoths were alive or dead, because tusks don't grow over injuries. Bison skulls do, so they think the bison lived a while after the impact. As for the Clovis spear points, nobody knows if the Clovis were alive or dead at the time.

We do know that the Clovis people, as well as the Mammoths and a bunch of other species, all vanished soon after the suspected impact 12,900 years ago.

I strongly suggest you watch the videos on this, if you want to know more. It is very interesting, and long and complex. And I am not going to transcribe it because you are too lazy to watch.

:wackywink:

[CFLarsen]

They don't really know. This entire new theory is very controversial. We do know that cosmic material was embedded by very high velocities, in mammoth tusks and bison skulls. It seems to have happened more than once. 35,000 and 12,900 years ago. Clovis points also have the same material in them from 12,900 years ago. It is highly suspected that many animals were killed by the shockwave, the firestorm, and the high velocity material. But, there are far more mysteries than facts at this point.

We don't know if the Mammoths were alive or dead, because tusks don't grow over injuries. Bison skulls do, so they think the bison lived a while after the impact. As for the Clovis spear points, nobody knows if the Clovis were alive or dead at the time.

We do know that the Clovis people, as well as the Mammoths and a bunch of other species, all vanished soon after the suspected impact 12,900 years ago.

They all went to the sale at K-Mart in Tucson, Arizona. And stayed.

I strongly suggest you watch the videos on this, if you want to know more. It is very interesting, and long and complex. And I am not going to transcribe it because you are too lazy to watch.

:wackywink:

Pretty please? :)

[Tumbleweed]

I keep hoping I'll run across the last herd of Mammoths while perusing the vastness of Siberia and Canada with Google Earth. Might even catch a Sasquatch out in the open! So much space and so little time to explore it!

[robinson]

Larson, I'm putting you back on ignore. :wackylaugh:

[shadron]

They don't really know. This entire new theory is very controversial. We do know that cosmic material was embedded by very high velocities, in mammoth tusks and bison skulls. It seems to have happened more than once. 35,000 and 12,900 years ago. Clovis points also have the same material in them from 12,900 years ago. It is highly suspected that many animals were killed by the shockwave, the firestorm, and the high velocity material. But, there are far more mysteries than facts at this point.

We don't know if the Mammoths were alive or dead, because tusks don't grow over injuries. Bison skulls do, so they think the bison lived a while after the impact. As for the Clovis spear points, nobody knows if the Clovis were alive or dead at the time.

We do know that the Clovis people, as well as the Mammoths and a bunch of other species, all vanished soon after the suspected impact 12,900 years ago.

I think that pretty much covers it - all except for the shrapnel still falling in this area :). Though, it's not much of a theory - how often have we heard what a theory is? - but rather an interpretation of some facts that have been found. Perhaps more reconstructive history than science, except for the overtones of catastrophy vs. uniformitarian theory and studying collision effects.

[robinson]

Oh it's a good theory. These researchers have done their homework, lots of research, and a lot of hard science.

They used NASA's Hyper Velocity Impact Lab to fire pellets at 12,000 mph, to test their theory about impact. Really cool footage on the NatGeo show of what might happen from a cloud of debris hitting the atmosphere. Both over land and over an ice sheet.

If it hit ice, there wouldn't be a crater to find, but would definitely cause effects like the theory predicts. Watching the impact in slow motion is pretty damn cool.

The science behind this is amazing. The He3 found in the microscopic buckyballs was news to me. And talk about controversy! The fighting over that evidence is intense. The Nanodiamond stuff is also way cool.

[skeptigirl]

I keep hoping I'll run across the last herd of Mammoths while perusing the vastness of Siberia and Canada with Google Earth. Might even catch a Sasquatch out in the open! So much space and so little time to explore it!I'm hoping to just find a tooth (http://images.google.com/images?q=mammoth+tooth&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi). They turn up around here from time to time.

[Molinaro]

Ok, I have read this entire thread, including all of CFlarsen's off topic posturing, and I think I can now respond to this.

1. An object lodged in a mammoth's tusk (very likely) would not kill a mammoth.
2. No one posting in this thread has suggested that an object lodged in a mammoth's tusk did kill a mammoth.

Question for CFLarsen - Why did you ask this question?

When I first read this thread, as the 1st page was being posted, I understood CFLarson's question to be in regards to the thread title. That is what I thought was being questioned.
The thread title implies that it was the buckshot that did the killing.

[Soapy Sam]

So the verdict is- Mastodons (Mammoths were extinct in America well before the Pleistocene), were wiped out by
Comet impact.
Radiation.
Bad weather.
Mice
Human predation
Cosmic shrapnel
Climate change
Really bad sinus trouble.

(Choose any combination).


God really had it in for those wooly suckers.


Call me sceptical, but I suspect it was the butler, in the library, with an atlatl.

ETA:- Robinson, thanks for the youtube link to the conference. I had somehow contrived to miss this announcement. As soon as I saw the date on the vid, I thought "Loch Lomond Glacial"- the British name for the Younger Dryas event. Scanning the vids, 4 and 5 seem to go into this in some detail. There have been many theories about the mechanism of the YD / KLL cooling. This is certainly a new and intriguing one.

[athon]

When I first read this thread, as the 1st page was being posted, I understood CFLarson's question to be in regards to the thread title. That is what I thought was being questioned.
The thread title implies that it was the buckshot that did the killing.

No. Skeptigirl, in response to something Claus had asked about how the mammoth had died, made a comment about the mammoth being killed by the blast. Claus responded with the words 'Explain please', and a quote about the bison. In his mind, he thought this was sufficient for skeptigirl to know he wanted to change the topic to the bison being killed. Of course, it took a few more posts for this to slowly become completely evident, so meanwhile there is confusion on what the mammoth had to do with his queries.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

No. Skeptigirl, in response to something Claus had asked about how the mammoth had died, made a comment about the mammoth being killed by the blast. Claus responded with the words 'Explain please', and a quote about the bison. In his mind, he thought this was sufficient for skeptigirl to know he wanted to change the topic to the bison being killed. Of course, it took a few more posts for this to slowly become completely evident, so meanwhile there is confusion on what the mammoth had to do with his queries.

How can anyone be confused, if the quote was about the bison?

Oh, well. If some people want to be confused, they will be.

[skeptigirl]

How can anyone be confused, if the quote was about the bison?

Oh, well. If some people want to be confused, they will be.And if some people want to be in denial fine,

but give this BS that everyone should have known your incomplete utterances had actual meaning a rest.

[robinson]

If I see a misunderstanding on a forum, I will beat it like a dead horse.