Paul, I am not satisfied with your apology to Hibbens yet.It is not fair practice in geology to point to something other than the formation the original researcher saw, and claim it was what he saw.That is simply bad practice, and highly unethical, and you need to own up to it. >From my point of view the whole of the Hibbens affair makes for an interesting >vase study of how science can go wrong. Paul, I expect a statement from you of your own failure analysis as necessary act of contrition.
E.P. Message: 1Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul <bristo...@yahoo.com> Subject: [meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 4 (Long) To: email@example.com Message-ID: <977612.23637...@web36213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 4 (Long) Note: my previous post in this series can be found at: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html , http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-July/036230.html , http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html , and http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037320.html In the post, ?More Muck from Paul? Mr. Grondine stated: ?Sorry for the diversion from meteorites to impacts. Why? What you're being treated to here is the heated repetition by Paul of the arguments against man having arrived in the Americas before Clovis as well as those arguments against a catastrophe. Here Mr. Grondine shows himself to be hopelessly confused and ignorant of what I have written as I have never made any arguments ?against man having arrived in the Americas before Clovis?. Nowhere, as falsely claimed above by Mr. Grondine, in my previous post, do I argue against that early man arrived in North before Clovis. If he would bother to closely read what I wrote, he would find, I just stated that there are no Paleo-Indian points older than Clovis. The fact of the matter is that contrary to the above assertions to the contrary, I have no disagreement with people, who argue for the presence of PreClovis human occupation of North America. In my last post, I clearly stated: ?Although (sic) there artifacts older than 13,000 BP have been found in the New World, none of them are the type of Pale(o)-Indian artifacts, which Hibben (1943) discussed having found in Alaska.? The above statement plainly shows that I acknowledge the existence of artifacts older than Clovis, which by mine and anyone?s definition would be regarded as being ?PreClovis?. Mr. Grondine continued: ?We've already been through the use of Hibbens data by other catastrophists who had imaginary catastrophic physical processes, and the reaction by the scientific community. We now move on to the field of anthropology. Hibbens was the first to discover pre-Clovis points (at Sandia), and thus was particularly attacked by those who posited no earlier peoples than those who produced the Clovis points.? It is true that there existed a very heated controversy over the presence of early man in North America before Clovis at the time that Hibben excavated Sandia Cave. The ultimate problem with his research, was that Hibben?s excavations at Sandia Cave were so poorly organized and badly documented and his reports on Sandia Cave are so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that he simply failed to make a convincing case for the antiquity of his Sandia Culture. The fact that his colleagues caught him sending bone samples, from a paleontological site many miles away from Sandia Cave, for radiocarbon dating as if they came from Sandia Cave, as discussed by Preston (1995), certainly raised questions about, at the best, inexcusable sloppiness of organization on his part, which allowed him to mix samples from very different sites in his analyses to, at the worst questions about his honesty. This and many other contradictions by Dr. Hibben in his publications and statements discredited himself, not only among the proponents of ?Clovis First? of which I am not one, but also among the archaeologists, who are proponents of a PreClovis occupation of North America, with which I greatly sympathize. The question is not whether there are PreClovis Sites, but how much older than Clovis sites they are. Reference Cited: Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995) Douglas Preston is a journalist, who lacks either any personal opinion, grant money, tenure or professional stake, which would bias his opinion in the PreClovis controversy. ?Unfortunately for the Clovis First argument, there are sites with hard dates showing pre- Clovis (Meadowcroft and Bluefish Cave sites for the Iroquoian peoples; and Pedra Furada for the Savanah River peoples). But these artifacts and radio-carbon dates are not the deciding point: the undeniable and hard mitochondrial DNA evidence in the remaining peoples must be the result of several crossings at times well before Clovis.? If Mr. Grondine would take the time and trouble to read my last post, he would find that I clearly wrote ?Although there (are) artifacts older than 13,000 BP have been found in the New World ...? Thus, Mr. Grondine is again falsely accusing me being a Clovis-First supporter, which I am certainly not. In addition, whether or not Clovis was the first to enter North America is a completely irrelevant Red Herring in this discussion as to whether the Alaskan ?Muck? was created by an extraterrestrial impact. Mr. Grondine wrote: ?Back now to the Fairbank muck deposit: I WAS WRONG. I MADE A MISTAKE. AN ERROR. Clearly, the deposits which Hibbens observed at Fairbanks came from the sudden ice melt following this impact event:? This is not the impact generated mega-tsunami, which here-to fore you have been arguing happened and which is what I thought the discussion was all about. I find it revealing that once your tsunami hypothesis for the origin of specific beds described by Hibben (1943) has been demolished, you invents a new and contradictory explanation. If this is what Mr. Grondine is proposing, then it is dishonest for Mr. Grondine to claim that Hibben (1943) supports his point of view as Hibben (1943) clearly stated: ??The deposits known as muck may be definitely described, in the opinion of the writer, as loess material. All characteristics seem to indicate a wind-borne origin from comparatively local sources, as the material resembles local bedrock. The outwash plains of the local glaciations are likely points of origin for this material.? Hibben (1943) clearly states above that he interprets the bulk of the Alaskan ?muck? being likely composed of wind-blown silt. It is just specific layers, which Hibben (1943) described as being containing the jumbled remains of plants and animals that he argued as being the result of a catastrophe. Even your new hypothesis cannot explain the physical characteristics of the Alaskan ?muck?. Cataclysmic floods of any type simply do not deposit thick sequences of silty sediments. In fact, they erode them as can be seen in the Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Basin where loess and any other loose surficial material has been stripped down to bedrock, which has been deeply eroded itself (Baker and Nummedal 1978). The texture, the composition, the sedimentary structures, layering and stratigraphy of the Alaskan ?muck? deposits show none of the characteristics that a cataclysmic flood would have produced had it occurred. For example, as summarized in Baker and Nummedal (1978) and seen in innumerable images of Mars, cataclysmic floods of the type envisioned by Mr. Grondine, produce very distinct landforms. These landforms include streamline islands; giant ripples composed of sand and gravel and up to 15-meter (50- foot high) gravel bars containing cobble- and even boulder-size clasts; and other features, i.e. Baker and Nummedal (1978), Carling (1996), and numerous other studies of the Missoula and Altai floods and jokulhlaups. Such landforms are nowhere to be found in the Fairbanks, Alaska region. In addition, as demonstrated by innumerable sedimentologic studies, cataclysmic floods do not deposit just silty sediments. They transport and deposit very coarse grained sediments, which in the Fairbanks area would contain abundant cobble and boulder-size clasts, much like the deposits of the catastrophic Missoula and Altai Mountain floods. Finally, as discussed before, the complete absence of event beds in paleoenvironmental Alaskan records, as summarized in Ager et al. (1985) and Barnosky et al. (1987), recovered from cores taken from bogs and lakes from all over Alaska also refute this new hypothesis. Some interesting pictures of the landforms and deposits of cataclysmic flooding can be seen in ?EPIC - Geologic Features Collection: Missoula Floods Set I? at; http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/EPIC/Geologic/Missoula/index.htm Some of the more interesting are these pictures are those of giant ripples, which can be seen at the bottom of this web page. For more information and pictures a person can look at ?The Missoula Flood? at: http://www.mines.edu/academic/geology/faculty/klee/docs/Missoula.pdf Descriptions and pictures of the deposits and landforms, which a catastrophic flood creates can found in ?Altai Flood? at: http://www.mines.edu/academic/geology/faculty/klee/docs/Altai.pdf References Cited: Ager, T. A., and L. B. Brubaker, 1985, Quaternary palynology and vegetational history of Alaska. Pp. 353-384 in V. M. Bryant, Jr. and R. G. Holloway, eds. Pollen records of late Quaternary North American sediments. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas, Texas. Baker, V. R., and D. Nummedal, 1978, eds. The Channeled Scabland. NASA, Washington, D.C., 186 pp. Barnosky, C. W., P. M. Anderson, and P. J. Bartlein, 1987, The northwestern U.S. during deglaciation; Vegetational history and paleoclimatic implications. pp. 289-321 in W. F. Ruddiman and H. E. Wright, Jr., eds. North America and adjacent oceans during the last deglaciation, Geology of North America, vol. K-3, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Carling, P. A., 1996, A preliminary palaeohydraulic model applied To late Quaternary gravel dunes: Altai Mountains, Siberia. in pp. 165-179, J. Branson, A. G. Brown, and K. J. Gregory, eds. Global Continental Changes: the Context of Palaeohydrology, Geological Society Special Publication no. 115, Geological Society of London. More references to other Alaskan paleonevironmnetal records can be found at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp011/alaska/alaska.ref and http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037320.html Mr. Grondine noted: ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o? You have not presented a single shred of hard evidence that there exists any relationship between the impact event described in this video and the origin of the so-called Alaskan ?muck?. ?But with this muck now accounted for, I am left trying to locate recovered physical evidence of the impact mega-tsunami which the Lenape described. (The following account has been adapted to modern usage from the one preserved in the Walum Olum, the ancient history of the Lenape people.):? ...oral histories and their interpretations omitted... Oral histories can provide very useful insight into possible catastrophes, which have happened in the past. However, they typically lack the specific information, i.e. precise calendar or radiocarbon dates, magnitude, duration, and so forth, about an event needed to prove what they are related to a specific event of any type. As a result, any piece of oral tradition can often be interpreted and argued to be proof of almost whatever event a person wants to interpret it to be. Also, Mr. Grondine and other catastrophists take a completely materialistic worldview in interpreting oral traditions that ignores the purpose of oral traditions in teaching religious and spiritual, not objective historical, truths. Mr. Grondine wrote ?Let's look at Hibbens description of (sic) Chitna Bay: "On one particular rainy, dark afternoon, we were assisting one of the paleontologists in excavating the remains of an Alaskan lion-a great, striped beast with long fangs, slightly reminiscent of a Bengal tiger. He looked like a nasty customer in death, even though he was represented only by scattered bones in the black muck. As we sought for the lower jaw of the lion in a newly revealed surface of muck, we found our evidence of man-a flint point still frozen solid in the muck bank.? Mr. Grondine is completely confused and absolutely wrong about the specific location, at which Dr. Hibben is talking about in the above quote and where he found his ?Alaskan lion?. If he would go to page 97 of Hibben (1946) or page 122 of Hibben (1960), he will find that in either edition, Dr. Hibben stated his ?Alaskan lion? was found in a gold mine near Fairbanks, Alaska. On page 121, Hibben (1961) indicates that this gold mine was located ?north of Fairbanks at Rosey Creek?. It is quite clear from Dr. Hibben?s own words that Mr. Grondine is wrong about Dr. Hibben?s ?Alaskan lion? being found at Chinitna Bay, which lies about 390-400 miles southwest of Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. Grondine quoted "Its position was about NINETY FEET BELOW THE ORIGINAL SURFACE. We photographed it in place, then removed it from the frozen ground, eagerly held it up, and turned it over for inspection. We washed the clinging muck from it in the muddy water beneath our feet. It was of pink stone, finely chipped and gracefully shaped, and undoubtedly made by the hand of man." Neither Hibben (1946) nor Hibben (1961) make any references to marine deposits either comprising the Alaskan ?muck? at Rosey Creek or overlying where Dr. Hibben found his ?Alaskan lion?. In addition, Mr. Grondine completely ignores the fact that both the point and ?lion? were found in an active Alaskan gold mine. It is an area where material is being moved about and around by bulldozers and large, intact blocks of ?muck? are slumping and caving from the sides of the mine excavation as permafrost melts and ?muck? is being removed from the sides of the mine to expose the gold-bearing gravels, which they cover. Given that this material often refreezes in the Arctic climate of Alaska, it is impossible to know whether the projectile point and, even the remains of Hibben?s ?Alaskan lion? without detailed photographs and field notes, which have been, conveniently for Dr. Hibben?s arguments, have been lost. Also, within the Alaskan ?muck? there exist deep cut and fill deposits, which can create local deep accumulations of younger sediments cut deeply into older sediments. As a result, without addition data, observations that the remains of an ?Alaskan lion? and projectile point were found 90 feet deep is meaningless. Mr. Grondine concluded ?The problem here is that no large cats were living in the area either 1575 A.D. or 1650 A.D. So obviously the spot this team examined could not have been the location where the remains were recovered.? Given that Hibben?s ?Alaskan lion? was found near Fairbanks, Alaska about 390 to 400 miles northeast of Chinitna Bay, it should be quite obvious that it is impossible for there to exist any relationship between the above Chinitna Bay dates and the ?Alaskan lion?, mentioned by Hibben (1946, 1961). Therefore, Mr. Grondine?s conclusion is quite meaningless. References Cited: Hibben, F. C., 1946, Lost Americans, 1st ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company. New York, 196 pp. Hibben, F. C., 1961, Lost Americans, Apollo ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company. New York, 200 pp. Final Note: Radiocarbon Dating - Calendar Years Versus Radiocarbon In other posts, authors have wisely cautioned about differentiating between calendar years and radiocarbon years and understanding, which if these is being used in scientific papers and popular articles. This can be seen in the following correlations: 10,000 BP radiocarbon is 11,400 BP calendar 11,000 BP radiocarbon is 12,910 BP calendar 12,000 BP radiocarbon is 13,800 BP calendar 13,000 BP radiocarbon is 15,320 BP calendar More about calibrating radiocarbon dates can be found in: C14Info-Calibartion http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html Radiocarbon Calibration http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/radiocarbon.htm The CalPal Online Radiocarbon Calibration. http://www.calpal-online.de/ CalPal - Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration & Palaeoclimate Research Package -- http://www.calpal.de/wp/ Best Paul H. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, phot
______________________________________________ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteoritefirstname.lastname@example.org https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list