Paul. I am not satisfied with your apology to Hibbens.yet.He deserves better from you.I E.P.
Message: 6Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul <bristo...@yahoo.com> Subject: [meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck (Mucks), Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited (Long) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID: <561951.62760...@web36205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mr. Grondine wrote; "Thanks for the references to the post war research, but I think you overstate your case." Anyone, who takes the time and trouble to read through what is called above " post war research", instead of mindlessly dismissing it as "baffling BS" will find that what you "think" is absolutely wrong. These publications provide overwhelming evidence and arguments that show that I have not overstated the case for the so-called Alaskan being composed largely of eolian sediment, called "loess", and colluvial and other deposits reworked from it and the complete lack of either any megatsunami deposits or layers composed entirely of impact ejecta. You continued: "Surely no archeological remains from 2 to 3 million years ago are in the deposits which I refered to, and which Hibbens examined. Given that Hibben (1943) studied "?muck deposits exposed in the grounds of the Fairbanks Exploration Company in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska.", it is quite clear that he did not limit his examination to only those Alaskan "muck deposits", which contained archaeology. Some of the peat layers (paleosols), which are mentioned in Hibben (1943) likely are tens to hundreds of thousands of years old. The youngest known "forest of trees", which occurs buried in the deposits, which Hibben studied, is the Eva Forest Bed. This bed has been dated as being about125,000 years old (Pewe et al. 1997).Thus, you are quite wrong about Hibben having only examined so-called "Alaskan muck deposits" containing archaeology. Lacking any sort of radiometric dating to guide him, Hibben (1943) wrongly assumed that all of the so-called "muck deposits", which he was studying, are young enough to contain archaeology. References Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska. American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259. Pewe, T. L., and others, 1997, Eva Interglaciation Forest Bed, Unglaciated East-Central Alaska: Global Warming 125,000 Years Ago. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 319, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. You continued: "The strata that I refered to did have archaeological remains. They were also the source for the mega-fauna ivory that was used commonly in the United States for the manufacture of billiard balls and piano keys at the turn of the last century." Your distinction between Alaskan surficial strata containing archaeological deposits and those that do not contain them completely is a complete figment of your imagination. The parts of the Engineering and Fairbanks loesses and Ready Bullion Formation, which contain archaeological deposits, are identical in texture, sedimentary structures, pedogenic (soil) structures, cyrogenic structures, stratigraphic layering, composition and other physical characteristics to the underlying and older parts of these formations, which lack archaeological deposits. If a person reads the papers, which I provided citations for in my last post, they will find that there is a complete lack of any significant scientific evidence, which demonstrates that your distinction between the surficial strata containing archaeology and older strata, which lack them, has any scientific basis. These citations, all of which I have either read at one time or the other, can be found at: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html In fact, if person takes the time to look at what has been published about the archaeological geology of cultural deposits found in these deposits as reported in the peered-reviewed literature and Cultural Resource Management reports, he or she will find that I am not at all overstating the case to conclude that there is a complete absence of any definite textural, stratigraphic, compositional, or sedimentological evidence for any of the archaeology-bearing deposits being of impact origin. Instead, a person find in these publications an abundance of data and observations, which repeatedly demonstrates that these surficial deposits consist of eolian deposits, called loess, which have been modified by colluvial, pedogenic, and other processes. One of these publications is: Esdale, J. A., Le Blanc, R. J., Cinq-Mars, J., 2001, Periglacial geoarchaeology at the Dog Creek site, Northern Yukon. Geoarchaeology. vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 151 ? 176 This article provides a perfect example of the colluvial deposits and loess, which have been disturbed by solifluction, frost heave, and cryoturbation, which comprise the deposits, which you and other claim to be the result of the imaginary catastrophe of choice. Also, in 1978, archaeologists studied the location of a site along the southern shore of Chinitna Bay between Coffin Creek and Sea Otter Point, where Hibben (1943) claimed to have found a Paleo-Indian point in his "muck deposits? (Myers 1980). Using his photographs, they were able to relocate his site. Instead of any tsunami deposits, they found ?...marine muds and salt marsh deposits which are capped by a layer of peat and, in some locations, by colluvial sediments.? Within these sediments they found ?one or more woody peats or paleosols...?, of which one was the ?humus stratum?, from which Hibben (1943) reported to have found cultural material. They found that the layer of ?muck?, which was reported by Hibben (1943), at this site, likely consists of a stratum of oxidized marine muds and salt marsh deposits. In situ wood samples from a blue-grey clay, which underlay Hibben?s cultural stratum, yielded two C-14 dates; 1. a date of 375+/-120 radiocarbon years: 1575 A.D. (GX-5655) and 2. a date of 300 +/-130 radiocarbon years: 1650 A.D. (GX-5656) (Myer 1980). Neither the early man occupation, mammoth remains, nor any Pleistocene sediments capable of containing them were found where Hibben (1943) stated that he found them. Also, Hibben (1943) was wildly wrong about the deposits exposed at Chinitna Bay being **older** than the "muck deposits" near Fairbanks , Alaska. In this and, very likely many other cases, Hibben grossly misinterpreted both the age and origin of his Alaskan "muck deposits" and exhibited a vivid imagination in what he has written about them. References Cited: Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska. American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259. Myers, T. P., Current research. American Antiquity. vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 182-199. You continued: Why these mega-fauna all chose to die at the same time is an interesting question." This is a very fascinating question. However, abrupt disappearance of megafauna have occurred during the Pleistocene at different times, separated by tens of thousands of years on different continents. The abrupt extinction, which occurred at the end of the last glacial stage is not the unique event, which you and other catastrophists claim it to be. It is simply impossible for a single extraterrestrial impact to have caused multiple Pleistocene extinction events. For an idea of the complex nature of the Pleistocene extinctions, a person can read: Barnosky, A. D., Koch, P. L., Feranec, R. S., Wing, S. L., Shabel, A. B., 2004, Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents. Science. vol. 306, pp. 70-75. Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G., and Lister, A. M., 2004, Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature, vol 431, pp. 684-689. In addition, there were two periods of terminal Pleistcoene megafauna extinctions in North America as noted in Elias (1999) and Stafford et al. (2005) and based upon 140 AMS radiocarbon dates from protein extracted from bones of Pleistocene megafauna collected from sites from all over North America. concerning the research of Stafford and others, Elias (1999) stated: "It now appears that the major megafaunal extinction event took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event included the extinction of camels, horses, giant sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal mammals that did not survive beyond 11,400 14C yr B.P., with the exception of the proboscideans. Mammoths and mastodons persisted beyond 11,400 yr B.P. Stafford et al. have dated the extinction of North American mammoth and mastodon to 10,900-10,850 yr B.P. So it now appears that there were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event took less than 100 years." Also, the dating of dung, bones, and other tissue from late Quaternary sloths, shows that not all of them "chose to die at the same time". Steadman et al. (2005) stated: " Radiocarbon dates directly on dung, bones, or other tissue of extinct sloths place their ?last appearance? datum at ≈11,000 radiocarbon years before present (yr BP) or slightly less in North America, ≈10,500 yr BP in South America, and ≈4,400 yr BP on West Indian islands." This and other research certainly reveals that your statement, "the mega-fauna all chose to die at the same", grossly oversimplifies the complexity of Pleistcoene extinctions. I seriously doubt that the mega-fauna ?chose to die?, which sounds like they got together in suicide pact, as the phrasing unintentionally suggests. :-) :-) References Cited: Elias, S. A., 1999, Quaternary Paleobiology Update Debate continues over the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinction. The Quaternary Times: Newsletter of the American Quaternary Association. vol. 29, no. 1, p. 3 http://www.amqua.org/publications/quaternarytimes/v29n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm Stafford, Jr., T. W., Graham, R., Lundelius, R., Semken, H., McDonald, H., and Southon, J., 2005,14C-Chronostratigraphy of Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions in Relation to Human Presence in the New World. Clovis in the Southeast Conference, October 26-29, 2005, The College of Arts & Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia South Carolina. http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/stafford.html Steadman, D. W., Martin, P. S., MacPhee, R. D. E., Jull, A. J. T., McDonald,|H. G., Woods, C. A., Iturralde-Vinent, M., and Hodgins G. W. L., 2005, Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths on continents and islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. vol. 102, no. 33, pp. 11763?11768. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1187974 You wrote: "As far as depositional mechanisms goes, I do not believe that there has been any work done on these deposits since the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a geological process." This is case of just because a person believes something to be true does not make it true. The depositional mechanisms of these Quaternary deposits in Alaska have been discussed in various publications since "the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a geological process." They include Lagroix and Banerjee (2004, 2006), Muhs et al. (2003), and Muhs and Budahn (2006). Muhs and Budahn (2006), they did a very detail geochemical and sedimentological analysis of these Alaskan Quaternary deposits. Muhs and Budahn (2006) found: "Major-element geochemistry shows that Alaskan loess also has been derived, at least in part, from sediments that have undergone one or more cycles of weathering and Na-plagioclase depletion (Fig. 5). Loess in Alaska, as elsewhere, appears to have a large component of particles that have undergone previous cycles of weathering and specifically Na-plagioclase depletion. Such particles could be derived from weathered soils, sedimentary rocks that have experienced a significant degree of diagenetic alteration, highly altered metamorphic rocks, or some combination of these protoliths." and "Fairbanks-area loesses also show typical UCC (upper- crustal) compositions on REE plots (Fig. 9). Samples at all depths in all sections show enriched LREE, negative Eu anomalies, and relatively flat HREE curves. The Alaskan loess REE trends are in agreement with those reported by investigators who have studied loess deposits from other regions (Taylor et al. 1983; Gallet et al. 1996, 1998; Jahn et al. 2001). They found the geochemical data to be indicative of wind-blown sediments derived from the floodplains of the in Tanana, Nenana, and Yukon rivers and typical of other known loess deposits. There is nothing in their geochemical data, which is indicative of any extraterrestrial component. References Cited: Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2004, The regional and temporal significance of primary aeolian magnetic fabrics preserved in Alaskan loess. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. vol. 225, pp. 379? 395 Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2006, Discussion of "Geochemical evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska" Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1887-1890. Muhs, D. R. and Budahn, J. R., 2007, Geochemical evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska. vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 323-337. Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A., III, McGeehin, J., Been, J. M., Beg?t, J. E., Pavich, M. J., Stafford, T. W., Jr., and Stevens, D. S. P., 2003, Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance of late Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska: Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986. Also a person can look at ?A Complex Origin for the Late Quaternary Loess in Central Alaska by D. R. Muhs and J. R. Budahn at: http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/AW2004/get_abstr.html?id=28 You continued: "Hibben ascribed them to volcanic activity, and saw volcanic ash." The mindless manner in which you keep citing of "Saint Hibbens" as if he is the infallible source of all information about Pliocene and Quaternary deposits of Alaska just indicates to me the extent that you and other catastrophists are quite ignorant of any of what you call ?post war research?. This research clearly demonstrates that Hibben's observations and interpretations, as in case of Chinitna Bay, about these sediments are so badly flawed, antiquated, and unreliable to the point they are quite useless in any discussion of the origin of these deposits. In addition to these problems, there exists significant doubts about the basic integrity of his research concerning both Sandia Cave and Alaskan early man sites. Some of these doubts are discussed in detail in "The Mystery of Sandia Cave" by Douglas Preston as published in the June 12, 1995 edition of the New Yorker Magazine. Anyone, who automatically assumes that Hibben is a credible and trustworthy authority needs to read this article. Yes, there are thin volcanic ash beds ranging from Pliocene, through the Pleistocene, and into the Holocene in age, which occur these surficial Pliocene and Quaternary sediments. All they prove is that major volcanic eruptions, as is typical of the Aleutian arc, have occurred throughout the late Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene and 2. that the deposits containing these thin ash beds accumulated episodically over the last two to three millions years. The wide range of stratigraphically consistent dates that have obtained from these ash beds soundly demolishes any claim that these deposits, even the loess and collivial deposits containing archaeology, accumulated as the result of single catastrophic event. In addition, the thinness of all of these ash beds demonstrate cataclysmic volcanic eruption had nothing to do with the formation of beds. You continued: "To my knowledge, they have never been examined for impactites; the recent work that was done on the holocene start impacts was privately funded to the tune of some $70,000. I think that ALL of these studies will need to be re-examined before the questions of depositional mechanisms is considered settled." As summarized in Muhs et al. (2003), the fact of the matter is that the depositional mechanisms that created the Pliocene and Quaternary deposits covering large areas of Alaska and Adjacent parts of Canada have been repeatedly examined in very fine detail a number of times and are extremely well known. There is more than enough data and observations to found in the published literature to: 1. soundly demolish any possibility that they contain any megatsunami deposits and 2. demonstrate that they consist only of a mixture of loess and colluvium largely derived from loess. An re-examination of the depositional processes for these deposits is the equivalent of beating a horse that is not only dead, but has decomposed into a weathered pile of bones. However, this is a free country. If you want to waste your life; pour your personal money down a rathole; and make a complete and utter fool of yourself by trying to duplicating 60 years and a couple million dollars worth of geological research, it is your problem not mine. Another is problem is that none of the numerous known examples of tsunami and megatsunami deposits remotely resemble any of the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene deposits within the Fairbanks, Alaska region. However, that is another two to three page essay and a couple of dozen citations to add to this post. Given the way loess accumulates, there could be widely scattered extraterrestrial / impact-related material to found in these deposits. However, like the volcanic ash beds found in it, this material will be completely unrelated to how these sediments accumulated. Examples of such material, which can be found in loess, is the horizon of Australasian microtektites, which has been recognized in loess sections in China (Li et al. 1993) and impactite-bearing horizons found in Argentine loesses. They would be more practical and productive stuff to look for. References Cited: Li, C. L., Ouyang, Z. Y., Liu, T. S., An, Z. S., 1993. Microtektites and glassy microspherules in loess?their discoveries and implications. Science in China B. vol. 36, pp. 1141?1152. Muhs, D.R., and Bettis, E.A., III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes: Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74 http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/eolian/MuhsBettis2003GSAsp370.pdf You wrote: ?Finally, you left Alain and Delair out of your list of cranks.? I failed to mention their book because I did not want embarrass you by associating you with such a laughably ignorant piece of pseudoscholarship. The degree to which this book is functionally illiterate in its understanding of Quaternary, planetary, and other types of geology is shown by the manner in which it confuses Midwestern glacial tills with either megatsunami or volcanic deposits and argues that deep sea manganese nodules are the result of an extraterrestrial impact. This book consists of the type of very sloppy and careless thinking, which a person expects to see in the answers to essay questions in freshman level college courses, but not in a book, which pretends to be a serious piece of scholarly research. This book is one of the reasons that research concerning terminal Pleistocene catastrophes has acquired a significant ?giggle factor? among conventional geologists. Some web pages on manganese nodules: Manganese nodules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/EarthScience/Oceanography/OceanSediments/Manganesenodules/Manganesenodules.htm http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5504/abs/255130a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5082/abs/2131218a0.html You finely wrote: ?But then as the saying goes, if you can't win on points, baffle them with BS.? That you have to dismiss 60 years of ?post war research?, which I discussed in my post, out-of-hand as ?BS? just shows to me how completely lacking in either any evidence or arguments, outside of Hibben?s antiquated and discredited research, which you have to support your ideas about there being any tsunami deposits in the so-called ?Alaskan muck?. Best Regards, Paul H.
______________________________________________ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteoriteemail@example.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list