It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MoparDanno
reply to post by punkinworks10
And in reality it might not have been just Mt St Helens. Mt. Rainier ,Mt. Baker and Glacier Peak have been quite active over the past 10-20000 years or so.
That picture is only for the past 4000 years, but you can easily extrapolate it out. All of the northern Cascade range volcanoes have been quite active for quite a long time.
By wimp are you talking about JT Pardee mentioned in the video? Yes he seems pretty wimpy to me. He thought he knew the source of the water at that 1920's meeting, which Harlen Bretz needed to prove his theory, yet Pardee didn't say anything about it for over a decade. This was an interesting part of the story to me. Why wouldn't he speak up? There was some kind of "politics" going on with his employer, but I also get the impression he was kind of a wimp. Bretz was no wimp, but it took a long time for his idea to be accepted. These are the interesting undercurrents of the scientific process in this case, geology aside.
Originally posted by ruthlesstruth
you have to be a wimp to procrastinate the process of telling others your idea in fear of being scrutinized because your idea is so outrageous to those whom can't think outside the box.
Asteroids don't typically make the same kind of volcanic ash as a volcanic eruption makes. One example would be the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. The layer of debris that deposited contains unearthly amounts of iridium so that's one clue the source was outer space.
For example is it too far fetched that asteroids fell upon the earth around the time all the ash showed up in the ground?
It's fine to consider various ideas, but what really counts is whether or not you can support those ideas with evidence. Harlen Bretz had an idea about the megaflood in the 1920s but since he didn't have enough evidence then, his idea wasn't accepted until later when there was more evidence.
Is it too insane to say a super volcano erupted around that time? I think it is best in a case like this for any ideas or theories to be welcomed with caution but not thrown out.