Meteorite storm 'smashed the Earth 12,000 years ago and killed off a prehistoric people'

page: 9
54
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by alienreality
 


Sound like something that would burn so hot it would vaporize all liquids and just leave the salts of organic compounds. mmmmmmmm


Yes it certainly did this too, at those sites are some type of calcium salts (if memory serves, it could be another element/compound..) (I can't remember exactly) left over, but underneath all of that are still existing chunks of the unburned fuel source..




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Well...this also lends validity to the scientists who say that the animals and early man with completely smooth "Bullet holes" in their bones could have been caused by meteorites which would again blow others theories out of the water since this seems a lot more feasible than ancient guns......



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SibylofErythrae

Originally posted by charlyv
The "Black Mat" is well understood, and covers areas of mostly states in the US great lakes regions all the way down to the Carolinas. It is a sediment of burnt ash in a stratification layer of soil and rock , 12-13k years old, and has evidence of carbon/nickel spherules mixed with burnt organic plant matter as well as a high concentration of iridium. That should be proof enough of an extraterrestrial origin. (A Natural one, caused by a comet or fragmented huge asteroid.)


Even if one rejects the asteroid impact or Younger Drydas impact idea, what you are still left with is a black mat.

So something set enough of the continent on fire to cause a black mat layer to form. Prior to this black mat layer, grassland areas were not as extensive and there were more treed areas. The ascension of the prairie buffalo kept the grasslands from reforesting as the herds would eat down new trees. Non-ranch grasslands in North America are starting to show this change now in reverse where trees and shubbery are where they have not grown for thousands of years because it isn't being eaten down.

Regardless of an impact being proven or disproven, SOMETHING happened.


Totally agree, but just the presence of iridium, melted carbon glass and magnetic spherules has a cosmic impactor written all over it. Nothing else on earth can produce all 3, especially when they are all found in the black mat itself and not above or below it.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'd agree, but I try not to become too bogged down in the details. There are critics who suggest that the sphericules are only found on sites with fire pits. This is then being used to suggest that the entire hypothesis of an impact doesn't work.

To which I'd say, fine. But there is still a black mat. So if it wasn't an impact....what caused the black mat that coincides with large mammal dig off in North America AND Asia?

Something set fire to the continent. If it wasn't an impact....well then, I'm even more curious. No super volcano blow out? No impact? Black mat. Mass Die Off. Closure of migration routes for herds AND humans. Odd combination of events.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SibylofErythrae
I'd agree, but I try not to become too bogged down in the details. There are critics who suggest that the sphericules are only found on sites with fire pits. This is then being used to suggest that the entire hypothesis of an impact doesn't work.

To which I'd say, fine. But there is still a black mat. So if it wasn't an impact....what caused the black mat that coincides with large mammal dig off in North America AND Asia?

Something set fire to the continent. If it wasn't an impact....well then, I'm even more curious. No super volcano blow out? No impact? Black mat. Mass Die Off. Closure of migration routes for herds AND humans. Odd combination of events.


The spherules are also found with melted carbon glass shrapnel, which a volcano does not get hot enough to produce, specifically, the glassy surface shows rapid quenching which means extremely high speed, which is another aspect that a volcano is not capable of. Fire pits cannot produce iron spherules impregnated with irridium, and they have been found everywhere in the black mat, not specifically near any clovis settlements.

The Carolina bays are another extreme example in this scenario, since they all point back in alignment to a huge bolide that hit the ice sheet over the great lakes. They are dated exactly to the clovis black mat, and have the same chemical signatures in their raised southern rims. Shallow craters made by masses of iron spherules, ice and carbon glass traveling at over 17k kilometers an hour at a trajectory of about 10 degrees off the horizon. I think the evidence is just too great to even question. The details make or break the theory, so they are extremely important.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv

The Carolina bays are another extreme example in this scenario, since they all point back in alignment to a huge bolide that hit the ice sheet over the great lakes.


A few notes: The great lakes didn't actually exist at that time but I understand the use of the term to describe a general location. However:




Within this part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the orientation of the long axes of Carolina bays varies by 10 to 15 degrees (Johnson 1942, Kacrovowski, 1977, Carver and Brooks 1989). If the long axes of these Carolina bays, as measured by Johnson (1942), are projected westward, they converge, neither in the Great Lakes nor Canada, but in the area of southeastern Indiana and southwestern Ohio.


That isn't really the great lakes, farther to the south - was this area covered by ice?



They are dated exactly to the clovis black mat,


Well no they don't;

Palynology


Within cores of undisturbed sediments recovered from Big Bay, North Carolina, Brook et al. (2001) documented well-defined pollen zones consisting of distinct pollen assemblages. They found a stratigraphically consistent series of pollen zones, which increased in age consistently with depth from Holocene interglacial epoch to the Wisconsinan glacial epoch, back into oxygen isotope stage 5, 75,000 to 134,000 years BP. These pollen zones collaborate the dating of Big Bay by OSL and radiocarbon dating.


OSL results


Over the last several years, Ivester et al. (2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) have dated the sand rims of numerous Carolina bays using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) They found sand rims of many Carolina bays to be as old as 80,000 to 100,000 BP. For example, Ivester et al. (2002) wrote about Flamingo Bay, a Carolina bay:


Sedimentology

Sedimentology results

Radiocarbon


Many radiocarbon dates, which were obtained from organic matter preserved within undisturbed sediments are greater than 14,000 BP radiocarbon in age. The finite radiocarbon dates range in age from 440 ± 50 to 27,700 ±2,600 BP radiocarbon in age (Whitehead 1981, Gaiser et al. 2001). Some samples are so old, they contained insufficient radiocarbon for dating, which results in "greater than" dates. For example, samples from sediments filling Carolina bays have been dated at greater than 38,000 to 49,550 BP radiocarbon years (Frey 1955, Brooks et al. 2001).


So a large range of dates but nothing to agree with a 'end of Clovis' strike



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv

The Carolina bays are another extreme example in this scenario, since they all point back in alignment to a huge bolide that hit the ice sheet over the great lakes. They are dated exactly to the clovis black mat, and have the same chemical signatures in their raised southern rims. Shallow craters made by masses of iron spherules, ice and carbon glass traveling at over 17k kilometers an hour at a trajectory of about 10 degrees off the horizon. I think the evidence is just too great to even question. The details make or break the theory, so they are extremely important.


Sorta the same idea that just hit me. Only there is no evidence of any iron or anything else in the bays. The interior is identical to the surrounding area. But if the impact on an ice sheet, why couldn't the impacotrs that made the Carolina Bays have been made of ice? Ice flung into the air by the impact of a comet. That perfectly explains why there is no debris. I can't believe no one saw it before. Ice. Ice made the bays. Wow. It is so simple now.

There is a guy on Google Earth who thinks they were created by an impact in the Saginaw bay in Michigan. He has done a lot of work on it, but he thinks it was a sheet of wet sand that covered the area and the bays were merely splash marks in the sand. Now it appears they were, just not sand, but ice. The ice impacted the sand and made the bays. The sand came from where it is at, just like the geologists say. Well, it came from the Appalachians just to the west, but they know that. It did not come from Michigan. Cool!



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by charlyv

The Carolina bays are another extreme example in this scenario, since they all point back in alignment to a huge bolide that hit the ice sheet over the great lakes.


A few notes: The great lakes didn't actually exist at that time but I understand the use of the term to describe a general location. However:




Within this part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the orientation of the long axes of Carolina bays varies by 10 to 15 degrees (Johnson 1942, Kacrovowski, 1977, Carver and Brooks 1989). If the long axes of these Carolina bays, as measured by Johnson (1942), are projected westward, they converge, neither in the Great Lakes nor Canada, but in the area of southeastern Indiana and southwestern Ohio.


That isn't really the great lakes, farther to the south - was this area covered by ice?



They are dated exactly to the clovis black mat,


Well no they don't;

Palynology


Within cores of undisturbed sediments recovered from Big Bay, North Carolina, Brook et al. (2001) documented well-defined pollen zones consisting of distinct pollen assemblages. They found a stratigraphically consistent series of pollen zones, which increased in age consistently with depth from Holocene interglacial epoch to the Wisconsinan glacial epoch, back into oxygen isotope stage 5, 75,000 to 134,000 years BP. These pollen zones collaborate the dating of Big Bay by OSL and radiocarbon dating.


OSL results


Over the last several years, Ivester et al. (2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) have dated the sand rims of numerous Carolina bays using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) They found sand rims of many Carolina bays to be as old as 80,000 to 100,000 BP. For example, Ivester et al. (2002) wrote about Flamingo Bay, a Carolina bay:


Sedimentology

Sedimentology results

Radiocarbon


Many radiocarbon dates, which were obtained from organic matter preserved within undisturbed sediments are greater than 14,000 BP radiocarbon in age. The finite radiocarbon dates range in age from 440 ± 50 to 27,700 ±2,600 BP radiocarbon in age (Whitehead 1981, Gaiser et al. 2001). Some samples are so old, they contained insufficient radiocarbon for dating, which results in "greater than" dates. For example, samples from sediments filling Carolina bays have been dated at greater than 38,000 to 49,550 BP radiocarbon years (Frey 1955, Brooks et al. 2001).


So a large range of dates but nothing to agree with a 'end of Clovis' strike



There is a lot of old data up there. There was proven an anomaly in the radio carbon dating due to a radioactive element that played a part in this event. Also, if you correct the rotational effects of the planet, the correction places it in the great lakes region, and also a suspected other member of the comet/asteroid which may have impacted on the ice sheet over Hudson bay, and a lot of research is underway on that aspect presently.

I will pass along another very recent book/white paper link previously given to me by Slayer69, Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture . This recent, in-depth analysis would be considered required reading in this subject.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv. I think the evidence is just too great to even question. The details make or break the theory, so they are extremely important.


In some cases though, when the details fail to account people throw even the most obvious evidence that remains away with them.

The most obvious evidence is ignored when the details of the specifics fail to account for it. Silliness, but still it is what happens.

If the details of the little sphericules are proved, but they only prove localized impacts I would hate for people to lose sight of the remaining piece of evidence. Local impacts might not account for the North America wide black mat.

Trees in the forest. If they prove that your copse of trees aren't oaks, or that the oaks are localized....did the forest disappear?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv

There is a lot of old data up there. There was proven an anomaly in the radio carbon dating due to a radioactive element that played a part in this event. Also, if you correct the rotational effects of the planet, the correction places it in the great lakes region, and also a suspected other member of the comet/asteroid which may have impacted on the ice sheet over Hudson bay, and a lot of research is underway on that aspect presently.


And how does that effect the pollen, OSL and sedimentology? Rotation of the earth? I don't think so, an object if it hit would have been moving very fast, the Earth movement wouldn't have made that much adjustment


I will pass along another very recent book/white paper link previously given to me by Slayer69,


Yes I know that book it's sitting on my desk, it was published in 2006.....you might want to look at what happened to Allen West and his information.....

The story
edit on 26/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It wasn't a meteor storm, it was Earth's other moon that exploded (as a part of a chainreaction, having to do with nuclear war on another planet, that also exploded - the remains of which can still be seen between Mars and Jupiter), because millions of Atlantian slaves were wishing for death at the very same time as the moon was pushed (by the explosion of the other planet) in a too direct particle resistance angle (hard to explain) against the Earth's magnetic field.

The moon exploded, and rained mostly on Atlantis. All the ancient knowledge about Atlantis knows about a 'rain of fire and brimstone'.

And it didn't happen 12000 years ago, it happened about 11500 years ago. Atlantis sank in about three days.

Of course, this explosion and all the heat from the firey stones raining on Earth, caused the tropical 'water mass' that surrounded the planet to be basically cut in half, which caused it to separate into two pieces, which then of course quickly moved towards the magnetic poles. And as the resistance was the weakest there, the masses of water simply flooded on Earth's surface from the poles.

This was the great flood.

But of course the enormous negative pressure that followed, caused large areas of that water to be frozen very quickly.

Thus began the ice age.

This is the way I have learned it - it might be wrong, of course - but I haven't found a better theory as of yet, about how it all happened, that would seamlessly explain everything. So I am sticking with it, until I can find the truth, or a better, more likely and logical theory.

So, in my opinion, the clumsy, nihilistic, unwise, egotistical 'scientists' of Terra are wrong again - but at least approaching the truth a little bit, this time.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoujikina
 

That’s an interesting theory, what should I look for as far as evidence goes that earth had another moon?
I don’t recall seeing much reference to that/



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoujikina



Shouldn't your name be 整合性 [せいごうせい] instead of Shoujiki?

So how did you know the story above, where does it come from?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





And how does that effect the pollen, OSL and sedimentology? Rotation of the earth? I don't think so, an object if it hit would have been moving very fast, the Earth movement wouldn't have made that much adjustment


The earth around the latitude of the great lakes moved 55 miles to the east during the time it took the material to hit the Carolina bays. In a straight trajectory from the Great lakes, the material passed through central eastern Ohio, so the apparent entry of the bolide would show that it passed through the border of Ohio and Indiana, not counting for earth rotation or the fact that the bolide was traveling to the south east, in direction of earth rotation which accounts for another 2 minutes of arc. This is why the earlier data was wrong, and it did not enter west of the great lakes region, but in fact directly over it.

As far as that article refuting some of the evidence, it is more of a character assasination on Kennet and West, more that anything else. They still cannot account for the wealth of evidence supporting a cosmic impact for the material found in the sites they examined.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv


The earth around the latitude of the great lakes moved 55 miles to the east during the time it took the material to hit the Carolina bays. In a straight trajectory from the Great lakes, the material passed through central eastern Ohio, so the apparent entry of the bolide would show that it passed through the border of Ohio and Indiana, not counting for earth rotation or the fact that the bolide was traveling to the south east, in direction of earth rotation which accounts for another 2 minutes of arc. This is why the earlier data was wrong, and it did not enter west of the great lakes region, but in fact directly over it.



90 kilometers depends on the speed of entry, is it 90 kilometers from the great lakes to the area specified? Nope, also you've forgotten again that the Carolina bays do not date to the time period nor do all of them orient to the direction you want


You also forgot to explain away the other hard truth that the dating methods show the theory to be fatally flawed - that alone kills the Caroline bay part of the theory




As far as that article refuting some of the evidence, it is more of a character assasination on Kennet and West, more that anything else. They still cannot account for the wealth of evidence supporting a cosmic impact for the material found in the sites they examined.


And why isn't this showing up, what does the new research show?
edit on 30/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by charlyv


The earth around the latitude of the great lakes moved 55 miles to the east during the time it took the material to hit the Carolina bays. In a straight trajectory from the Great lakes, the material passed through central eastern Ohio, so the apparent entry of the bolide would show that it passed through the border of Ohio and Indiana, not counting for earth rotation or the fact that the bolide was traveling to the south east, in direction of earth rotation which accounts for another 2 minutes of arc. This is why the earlier data was wrong, and it did not enter west of the great lakes region, but in fact directly over it.



90 kilometers depends on the speed of entry, is it 90 kilometers from the great lakes to the area specified? Nope, also you've forgotten again that the Carolina bays do not date to the time period nor do all of them orient to the direction you want


You also forgot to explain away the other hard truth that the dating methods show the theory to be fatally flawed - that alone kills the Caroline bay part of the theory




As far as that article refuting some of the evidence, it is more of a character assasination on Kennet and West, more that anything else. They still cannot account for the wealth of evidence supporting a cosmic impact for the material found in the sites they examined.


And why isn't this showing up, what does the new research show?
edit on 30/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


Again, I hold that the research done on the Carolina bays shows that they indeed DO have a date included in the research that has been done. This is a very controversial subject, and my comments , as well as yours are IMHO, because there are so many out there that disagree in the same way. Pick your mentors, and go with them. I have no problem with that. This is what ATS is all about. Peace.





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join