The Clovis Comet

Very interesting......all buried in a lake in a war zone. Maybe in more peaceful times with a submersible more material could be obtained for a more modern examination. Would be interesting to see what could be discovered with modern tech.
 

The Carolina Bays of the Southeastern US were possibly formed by this same event. The theory is that a very large piece of a comet struck the ice sheet in Michigan, launching hundreds of ice boulders into space on ballistic trajectories that then impacted the earth along the east coast from Maryland south in an arc that extends into Georgia, and possible even curves around into the Midwest. The elliptical craters that remain seem to have formed only under favorable soil conditions, mainly soft swampy grounds. It is speculated that this continental disaster wiped out the Clovis people, as well as many mega beasts.

carolina bays1.jpg

carolina bays 2.jpg
 

really enjoyed that article Uniface. I wasn't aware of any of this, but have always wondered about what happened to "Clovis" people.
Thanx
 

I was on board until the shifting of the earth's crust by 30 degrees came in. From that point on, I found it highly contradictory to existing geologic, and planetary knowledge. The article became fiction. IMO.
 

I was on board until the shifting of the earth's crust by 30 degrees came in. From that point on, I found it highly contradictory to existing geologic, and planetary knowledge. The article became fiction. IMO.
Click to expand...

He cites his references well, and his conclusions from them make sense. Might your impression of what "existing geologic and planetary knowledge" comprises be in need of revision ?

For one example, you could spend hours here
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/category/alaskan-muck/
learning about Alaskan muck alone.
Article sequence begins at the bottom of the page.

The sciences are full of surprises.

FWIW
 

Last edited:
The Clovis Comet was a good read, still a lot to learn and study about that. (If for no other reason than eventually something along those lines will hit our rocky world again.)

The other article is borderline historical fiction.
uniface said:
Best one-read catch-up. In great detail and pulls information widely scattered together into one picture.
Click to expand...

"To make things worse, the woolly mammoth lived during the ice age, when temperatures were colder than today. Mammoths could not have survived the harsh northern Siberia climate of today, even less so 13,000 years ago when the Siberian climate should have been significantly colder."

I'm not sure why the author (who has an IT and business background) is so hung up on Mammoths not being cold weather creatures other than he likes that explanation as a support for the axis tilt. The change in climate from before the younger dryas to now is exceptionally well documented from pollen studies. We know the plants that existed from dated contexts, we know the plants that all of these furry animals ate and pooped out, we know what happened to the plants when the megafauna extinction happened and changed the landscape. (A similar process has happened in the US when the Bison were essentially wiped out, and the types of grasses and forests changed pretty quickly when you didn't have millions of large herbivores running around the landscape.)

For reference, here are some great pictures of where these frozen mammoths are found. Permafrost has been melting over the last several decades, but they weren't living on glaciers or pack ice without a food source. Yes, it's easy to picture them on a barren landscape because all of the pictures we see of Mammoths show them on flat icecap with maybe mountains in the distance, but Siberia isn't a barren landscape today and wasn't then. Pollen studies of the mammoth hair show they were around a variety of plants large and small. Their dung is shockingly common in the permafrost, and it shows what they ate and the time of year when they ate it.

Cool pictures of the lanscape & fossil hunters:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...nting-woolly-mammoths-in-siberian-permafrost/

"Mammoths remains are usually found piled up with other animals, like tiger, antelope, camel, horse, reindeer, giant beaver, giant ox, musk sheep, musk ox, donkey, badger, ibex, woolly rhinoceros, fox, giant bison, lynx, leopard, wolverine, hare, lion, elk, giant wolf, ground squirrel, cave hyena, bear, and many types of birds. Most of those animals could not survive the arctic climate. This is an extra indication that woolly mammoths were not polar creatures."

The author is the only one connecting Mammoths to a arctic/polar climate to then say that they aren't polar creatures. The area he's talking about isn't polar. For what its worth, Oymyakon is the coldest city in the world deep in the heart of Siberia (almost 90 degrees below Zero when it gets really cold) and some of the animals he mentions as not surviving the arctic climate live there just fine today. Badgers, wolverines, wolves, fox, lynx, reindeer, horses, bears, and historically tigers were even hunted near there. It's cold & dry in the winter, but summers are quite nice if you don't mind mosquitos. Many animals do just fine in the cold, as long as there is food/fodder for to get them through the winter.


uniface said:
Best one-read catch-up. In great detail and pulls information widely scattered together into one picture.

https://www.sott.net/article/357709-Of-Flash-Frozen-Mammoths-and-Cosmic-Catastrophes
Click to expand...
 

I've never thought the Clovis people "disappeared". I figured they just morphed into another culture. If the Clovis people disappeared, who taught the Folsom people to flute their projectile points? Someone survived and passed it down. Gary
 

He cites his evidence and draws his conclusions. Pretty solidly, IMO. His background has nothing to do with his ability to assemble & integrate simple evidence into a coherent picture, any more than your background in business administration devalues your ability to deal intelligently with artifacts.

Nor do attempted cheap shots like "borderline historical fiction" buttress your credibility.

Any time evidence appears to contradict some established belief, you leap to defend that belief as a belief. You've done this consistently, over many years. Belief is what you deal in, because belief is the mode you operate in. This is completely irrational. Because beliefs change as more and better data surface. Facts don't.

IOW: data is primary. Beliefs are secondary and derivative.

I invite you to spend several hours in the Alaskan Muck series I linked to, learning how much, and how significant the evidence being left out of the picture in the "official version" of the past is.
 

uniface said:
He cites his evidence and draws his conclusions. Pretty solidly, IMO. His background has nothing to do with his ability to assemble & integrate simple evidence into a coherent picture, any more than your background in business administration devalues your ability to deal intelligently with artifacts.

Nor do attempted cheap shots like "borderline historical fiction" buttress your credibility.

Any time evidence appears to contradict some established belief, you leap to defend that belief as a belief. You've done this consistently, over many years. Belief is what you deal in, because belief is the mode you operate in. This is completely irrational. Because beliefs change as more and better data surface. Facts don't.

IOW: data is primary. Beliefs are secondary and derivative.

I invite you to spend several hours in the Alaskan Muck series I linked to, learning how much, and how significant the evidence being left out of the picture in the "official version" of the past is.
Click to expand...

Damn, Uniface, you have a short fuse. I agree with joshuaream, in that the author , in your second example, began just making crap up. Give it a moment's thought. What would be the geological evidence of wrenching North America 30 degrees, north or south, over just a few thousand years? Enormous rifts, enormous mountain ranges. Unbelievable tears in the crust venting lava flows of such magnitude, it would define the continental landscape. The Mississippi would not be where it is today, nor any of the other major river systems that have been in place for hundreds of thousands of years. Just those few contradictions, make further consideration unnecessary.

Planets altering their orbit, for a while. Doesn't happen. You should consider your sources. Sign of the Times, or whatever it's called, is just one of many organizations, pandering to those who want to believe anything but the truth. Contrarianism is nothing new, but now you can make a living at it, with the internet.

The comet impact theory, has been studied in detail, and the scientific evidence, in my opinion, is there. It can be explained logically, and nothing about it rings as impossible. In fact, it makes sense. I live among the impact craters, and have studied the problem somewhat. I believe the theory, because it is believable.

BTW, fiction is not data.
 

Last edited:
Kray : Your thought pattern there is a simple (simplistic) one, easily summed-up. It goes like this : "Our working model doesn't allow that to have been possible. So it can't be because it just can't be. And anybody who says it could be is an idiot or a troll."

Now kindly consider : Articles advocating that manned, heavier than air flight was possible in theory were banned by the Scientific American and other "authoritative" populations (per reviewed, no doubt), because the well-known Laws of Aerodynamics (which the official model depended on) proved it was impossible -- until the Wright Brothers proved otherwise.

Fact.

Geologists once "knew" with ironclad certainty that continents cannot possibly move. So much so that pointing out evidence that Continental Drift was inescapable were hounded out of their teaching positions. The model simply didn't allow it to be possible. Therefore, it wasn't.

Fact.

Surgeons were once so convinced that disease was not transferable from unwashed hands that they made Lister's life miserable after he pointed out that puerperal fever was transmitted exactly that way, and that hand washing between deliveries and disinfectants eliminated it by mocking him. "Gentlemen, let us spray . . . hahahaha !!!!"

Fact.

Previous to 1927 (Folsom Site), anyone suggesting that there had been people in North America previous to 2,000 BC would have been hounded out of the teaching profession. The model didn't allow that, so it couldn't be. Ignored in this was that similar direct associations of projectile points with pleistocene remains had been reported before -- some by archaeologists -- and were ignored or greeted by the pompous mockery of those who "knew better."

Fact.

What people take to be "scientific certainties" have always lagged behind actual discoveries by up to 100 years. For example, you will find precious little of Newtonian Physics in Physics today.

Fact.
 

uniface said:
Kray : Your thought pattern there is a simple (simplistic) one, easily summed-up. It goes like this : "Our working model doesn't allow that to have been possible. So it can't be because it just can't be. And anybody who says it could be is an idiot or a troll."

Now kindly consider : Articles advocating that manned, heavier than air flight was possible in theory were banned by the Scientific American and other "authoritative" populations (per reviewed, no doubt), because the well-known Laws of Aerodynamics (which the official model depended on) proved it was impossible -- until the Wright Brothers proved otherwise.

Fact.

Geologists once "knew" with ironclad certainty that continents cannot possibly move. So much so that pointing out evidence that Continental Drift was inescapable were hounded out of their teaching positions. The model simply didn't allow it to be possible. Therefore, it wasn't.

Fact.

Surgeons were once so convinced that disease was not transferable from unwashed hands that they made Lister's life miserable after he pointed out that puerperal fever was transmitted exactly that way, and that hand washing between deliveries and disinfectants eliminated it by mocking him. "Gentlemen, let us spray . . . hahahaha !!!!"

Fact.

Previous to 1927 (Folsom Site), anyone suggesting that there had been people in North America previous to 2,000 BC would have been hounded out of the teaching profession. The model didn't allow that, so it couldn't be. Ignored in this was that similar direct associations of projectile points with pleistocene remains had been reported before -- some by archaeologists -- and were ignored or greeted by the pompous mockery of those who "knew better."

Fact.

What people take to be "scientific certainties" have always lagged behind actual discoveries by up to 100 years. For example, you will find precious little of Newtonian Physics in Physics today.

Fact.
Click to expand...

Your first assumption isn't at all correct. That's not at all what I'm thinking, and I never thought you were an idiot or a troll. I'm thinking your intellect is no doubt superior to mine. It just pains me to see these highly developed and sophisticated supposedly factual websites, pandering to the less than knowledgeable, providing an avalanche of false information, presented in such a way to make them believable to those who haven't studied the subject. It's no different than the "intelligent design" experts, promoting their ridiculous, legend and myth supported ideas. Those less than aware eat it up.

I'm really not interested in a long winded debate with you. I don't debate religion either. It's a fruitless exercise, and I know you have far more energy to devote to it, and I'm certain typing for you is not the struggle it is for me. From my viewpoint, our hard working, dedicated scientists have a lot of stuff sorted out. Archeology, is most definitely a work in progress, with new discoveries every day.

Your brief history lesson above is largely correct. Are you discounting all scientific principles we know today, and starting over? Or trying to fit some predetermined belief into what you observe around you? I just don't understand your venom, when someone disagrees with the discordant ideas you present.

Lastly, why do you feel you need to say I'm simple minded? And you presume to know my thought process. Anyway, you are using fringe materials to support your claims, and you're getting your ideas from fringe materials. I strongly recommend you get away from that.
 

I find this impact theory to be particularly interesting. The majority of the sites I have surface hunted for the last 15 years have been associated with the depressions theorized to have been initially created by the crashing back to Earth of the proposed impact debris. Since first reading of this theory a few years ago I have taken closer notice of the sites I hunt and have recognized that the higher and sandier berms or knolls around these depressions are usually on the southeast side, which is also where the highest concentration of artifacts are normally located. The early & mid archaic peoples around here seem to have taken advantage of the slightly elevated and better drained knolls around these "Carolina Bays", with their southern exposures.
 

uniface said:
He cites his evidence and draws his conclusions. Pretty solidly, IMO. His background has nothing to do with his ability to assemble & integrate simple evidence into a coherent picture, any more than your background in business administration devalues your ability to deal intelligently with artifacts.

Nor do attempted cheap shots like "borderline historical fiction" buttress your credibility.

Any time evidence appears to contradict some established belief, you leap to defend that belief as a belief. You've done this consistently, over many years. Belief is what you deal in, because belief is the mode you operate in. This is completely irrational. Because beliefs change as more and better data surface. Facts don't.

IOW: data is primary. Beliefs are secondary and derivative.

I invite you to spend several hours in the Alaskan Muck series I linked to, learning how much, and how significant the evidence being left out of the picture in the "official version" of the past is.
Click to expand...

uni, I'm familiar with your posts over the artifact and prehistory forums spectrum for quite a few years now. You speak here of belief. But, I have noticed a position you seem to have adopted, and it really seems to reflect "belief" just as much. I may be mistaken, but, you have always come across to me as adopting this position: If an outside the box theory upsets the apple cart of received wisdom, the outside the box theory MUST be correct. Or MUST be debunked before the dominant paradigm can survive. In other words, you really do seem to casually toss out any dominant paradigm if it's contradicted by an outside the box idea. It's as if, if an alternative to the ruling paradigm comes along, it has to be correct, simply because it undermines the ruling paradigm. This has always seemed illogical to me.

Now, I am a Fortean by temperament, and therefore I love outside the box ideas. I never want to close my mind to ideas that may change everything, and I enjoy examining such ideas in a great many disciplines. But I do not adopt the attitude, "look, this undermines the paradigm, therefore it must be correct!" I mean, it's great to always keep in mind that our theories may be seriously mistaken, but that does not eliminate the need to apply one's powers of discriminating intelligence when weighing new ideas, to the same degree to which one applies one's powers of discriminating intelligence to ruling paradigms.

Now, forgive me if I am mischaracterizing your approach. But, when you are quick to grow defensive whenever anyone questions the veracity of claims you promote, I immediately think that the fact that an idea undermines a paradigm is far more important to you than the "evidence" that is used to promote, or support, that new idea. Which makes it seem your support of an outside the box idea is itself a type of faith.
 

FWIW …..a politically/culturally incorrect take on “SCIENCE”.
“Science”.. is a roughly 600 year old, seven letter word in the English language that describes or defines the process of using logic and reason in an organized and systematic way, whereby our best thoughts, ideas, hypothesis, theories, faiths and beliefs are tested continuously under procedures that are as controlled as we can possibly, practically, potentially, professionally or profitably produce them. The results of these tests are then evaluated to determine if our thoughts, ideas, hypothesis, theories, faiths and beliefs should be considered as “truth or fact” until further tested and tentatively determined otherwise.

“Science” is NOT a process that was only discovered and utilized by certain people with elite skills within the past 100, 600, 1000 or 6000 years etc. The truth is that all adult human beings use the process of ‘Science” in their daily lives, and always have.

For example; The stereotypical single unwed mother of three uses the scientific process every weekday morning when she tests her ideas, hypothesis, theories and beliefs regarding the best way to get her 3 young children out of bed, cleaned, dressed, fed, packed and driven to the day care, pre K, and elementary schools respectively, and then herself driven to work across town thru an ever changing maze of traffic and weather conditions. She tests her ideas and theories over and over again every day, and studies the results of her experiments and tests. Truth be told, she may be the world’s foremost scientific expert on that particular subject, although she probably does not put on airs of being superior in some way because she utilizes the common processes of “Science”.

Obviously the vast majority of “truth and facts” once determined by using the scientific process throughout history, have been later modified, edited, changed, evolved, or totally scraped by later studies and tests using the scientific process, and although an argument can be made that the pace of these scientific reversals or modification of “truth and facts” is slowing, there are very few who would be naïve enough to argue that what we now consider as scientific truth and fact will never change.

In reality “scientists” are merely people trying to conduct studies to learn. Sometimes they are trying to study things that are relevant and could be considered important to homo sapien life, and other times the studies can be considered insignificant, irrelevant, or trivial to the larger picture.

Unfortunately our current pop culture is at a severe disadvantage in really understanding truth and facts, in relation to let’s say people who lived 200, 2000, or 20,000 years ago. A majority of people in our current western pop culture cult stereotypically view people carrying the label “Scientist”, with the same reverence that people once stereotypically viewed people who carried the labels “Preacher, Priest, Reverend, Rabbi, or Shaman, in that people with these labels were to be considered somehow elevate d or elite and possessed an ability to understand “truth and facts” that were beyond the capabilities of those less elevated by their labels.

There are many on our current pop culture cults who have a deep religious faith and belief that only the chosen ones can truly use the processes of logic, reason and science. Therefore no one can truly be considered or labeled a “Scientist” until they are called into the Human Resources Department of the Government Agency or tax payer funded institution, whereby the Personnel Manager sets them down and explains to them how much of the tax payers money will be given them to produce the charts, graphs, reports, videos, filmstrips, slides, presentations, handouts, press releases, documentaries and speeches etc. which will teach, preach and profess the written or unwritten Mission Statement of that particular Agency or Institution. Then and only then, when the HR Manager hands them a business card that reads “Yada Yada Yada Scientist”, can they truly and righteously be regarded as a scientist in our current pop culture cult.

You know.. if one day Ruth Buzzy Speilberg finally died and made me the Government God, one of the first things I would sadistically enjoy doing would be to issue an 11th Commandment Executive Order to have all taxpayer funded business cards re-issued, whereby the righteous titles of “Yada Yada Yada Scientist” would be permanently replaced by the humble tile of “Yada Yada Yada Student”. Although I admit it would appear to be an initial waste of good taxpayer monies, I believe in the long term it would be a wise investment whereby we can quickly recognize and flush out those within the profession who currently regard themselves with a self-defeating religious righteousness, which impedes them from practicing true “Science”.
 

uniface said:
He cites his evidence and draws his conclusions. Pretty solidly, IMO. His background has nothing to do with his ability to assemble & integrate simple evidence into a coherent picture, any more than your background in business administration devalues your ability to deal intelligently with artifacts.

Nor do attempted cheap shots like "borderline historical fiction" buttress your credibility.

Any time evidence appears to contradict some established belief, you leap to defend that belief as a belief. You've done this consistently, over many years. Belief is what you deal in, because belief is the mode you operate in. This is completely irrational. Because beliefs change as more and better data surface. Facts don't.

IOW: data is primary. Beliefs are secondary and derivative.

I invite you to spend several hours in the Alaskan Muck series I linked to, learning how much, and how significant the evidence being left out of the picture in the "official version" of the past is.
Click to expand...

Further....

A person should be able to offer reasonable critiques of any idea, any theory, without being accused of being closed minded. Defenders of the status quo. Defenders of receved wisdom. Defenders of ruling paradigms. It is sometimes the case in the sciences that the received wisdom of generally accepted paradigms turn out to be in enough error to require revolutionary revisions. Human nature being what it is, this often leads to heated debates, accusations of closed mindedness, and the like. And sometimes science advances one funeral at a time.


My dad was a clinical psychologist. He didn't bring his work home with him, but one night he offered an observation of something he had learned studying and analyzing people for many decades: the people who complain the loudest about a particular behavior by others are often the very people engaged in that behavior themselves. I think it's pretty easy for any of us to fall into this situation. It's pretty human.


When a person offers reasonable objections to someone's preferred point of view, and is immediately accused of operating from a position of faith, that is insulting to the intellect of the person critiquing the new theory in question. It is as much an example of close mindedness as the person who rejects a new idea for no reason other than "it upsets the ruling paradigm, it has to be wrong."


This is absurd. Joshua and anyone else has every right to believe what they wish, without someone launching into the behavior reflected in my dad's observation. I completely reject the notion that Joshua is operating from the position of a "true believer". That is insulting, IMO.
 

Insisting on the primacy of factual data whenever it conflicts with belief now = Faith.

Curiouser and curiouser.

If what I've pointed out by now doesn't make adequate sense to you, a 2,000 word dissection of Mr. Reem's response would serve no purpose.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

A good WINDY day

⬅️ Previous Thread

Carved stone

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top