Including Original "Paul H. Letters" Copyright © 1996-2017 Paul V. Heinrich - All rights reserved.



Tuesday, 7 August 2007

Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 2 (Long)

Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 2 (Long)

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 7 10:43:00 EDT 2007

Note: my previous post in this series can be found at:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html and
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-July/036230.html

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“You raise many points in your effort to obscure
one point, the point Hibben recovered. That point
may be placed between say about 45,000 BCE and
8,249 BCE.”

Contrary to what Mr. Grondine claims above, none of the projectile
points reported by Hibben (1943) has been dated as being older
11,000 BP. For example, the “Yuma” points, which are now called
Eden points, are securely dated as having been made between 8,800
to 9,400 BP as discussed in detail by Holliday (2000). There is not
a single shred of credible evidence that any of the so-called “Yuma”
points found’ by Hibben (1943) could be as old as 45,000 BP as is
incorrectly claimed above.

In addition, there are much younger prehistoric projectile points,
which are found in Alaska, that superficially resemble Eden (Yuma)
points. It is quite possible that Dr. Hibben in his zeal to find
PaleoIndian artifacts misidentified these points as “Yuma” points.
This possibility is demonstrated by the fact that Hibben (1943)
reported a “Yuma” Paleo-Indian point from sediments, which are
exposed along the coastal cliffs of Chinitna Bay, southern Alaska
and now are know to be Late Holocene in age as discussed in detail
by Thorson et al. (1978, 1980). The fact that Thorson et al. (1978,
1980) obtained a date of 300+/-130 years from the stratum, in which
Hibben (1943) found one of his Alaskan “Yuma” points certainly
indicates how unreliable Mr. Grondine’s estimate of 8,249 to 45,000
BP for Hibben’s points happens to be as it is wrong by at least 8,000
years in this case. Similarly, as documented in detail by Thorson
et al. (1978, 1980), Hibben (1943) reported “mammoth bones” eroding
out of the same Late Holocene deposits on the beaches of Chinitna
Bay, southern Alaska, where the only large bones to be found come
from beached whales.

The Folsom points, which Hibben (1943) reported from these
deposits, are part of the Folsom Complex, which is well dated at
10,900-10,200 B.P. as discussed by Holliday (2000). Thus, it is
well documented in the published, peer-reviewed literature that
either Folsom or “Yuma” points dates to 45,000 BP as Mr.
Grondine falsely claims above.

Reference Cited:

Holliday, V. T., 2000, The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology
and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology. vol. 15, no. 3,
pp. 227-290.

Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett and E. J. Dixon, 1978, Chinitna Bay
cultural resource study-The geology and archeology of the southern
shore of Chinitna Bay, Alaska. University of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks, Alaska.

Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett and E. J. Dixon, 1980, A reported
early-man site adjacent to southern Alaska's continental shelf:
A geologic solution to an archeologic enigma. Quaternary
Research. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-273.
doi:10.1016/0033-5894(80)90033-2

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“As background for those of meteoritical bent,
Frank Hibben was one of the first archaeologists
to excavate Folsom and Clovis remains, ...”

The statement not completely true. It is true that Dr. Frank W.
Hibben was one of the early archaeologists involved in the study
of Paleo-Indian sites. However, he had very little to do with any
of the early significant research concerning the Folsom and Clovis
complexes. His main contribution to Paleo-Indian research was his
research at the Sandia Cave Site, which is still hopelessly mired in
controversy and his Sandia Complex, which has been discredited
as a valid cultural complex. An article about Hibben, Sandia
Cave, and his Paleo-Indian research is "News: History, Santa
Fe / NM, Columns Trail dust, 09/16/2006 - Sandia Cave
significance mired in controversy" at;

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/49330.html

The article concludes:

“But scholars generally have moved away from
acceptance of Sandia Man as a genuine landmark
in our prehistory. And today, one seldom finds
reference to him in professional handbooks and
texts.”

Mr. Grondine continued:

“and in 1933 and 1941 he traveled to Alaska trying to
find remains of early man along the "Siberian Land
Bridge". Hibben's account of the work of the pioneering
archaeologists makes for a fine read, and his description
of what he found in Alaska, and where he found it,
makes for particularly fascinating reading....”

...lengthy quote from Hibben’s publications deleted...

It is curious how catastrophists selectively quote only those
parts of Hibben’s published papers, which support the specific
catastrophe of their choice being argued for. For example, they
never quote Hibben (1943), where he 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. These
mucks deposits are from four to one hundred feet
thick and are especially well known in the vicinity
of Fairbanks, Circle , and other gold mining
centers of the Upper Yukon and the Tanana
where the muck overlies auriferous gravels. Muck
deposits of considerable thickness, however, are
found in the lower reaches of the Yukon, on the
Koyukuk River, on the Kuskokwim and on several
places along the Arctic coast, and
"

This quote and other material from Hibben (1943), which
catastrophist conveniently do not inform their readers about:

1. shows that the deposits containing mangled and twisted
vegetation remains are only a very, very small part of the
deposits, which Hibben called "muck". Hibben (1943) clearly
states that the vast majority of his "muck" deposits most likely
consist of wind-blown loess and related colluvial and
solifluction deposits.

2. The deposits, which called "muck" are the same Pliocene and
Quaternary age deposits, which Dr. Westgate, Dr. Pewe, Dr. Muhs,
and many other geologists studied and published on in great detail
in the 60 years since Hibben (1943) was published. A selection of
these references can be found at the end of this post.

In addition Hibben (1943) stated:

"Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered
masses concentrated in what must be regarded
as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."

In the thread "Re: New www page on mammoths" on the Talk.origins
newsgroup, Dr. Andrew MacRae, an experienced Canadian geologist
stated about these and similar deposits, which comprise Hibben's
evidence for catastrophic deposition.

" Wow. Debris flows. Slumps initiated by permafrost
melt. Crevasse fills in permafrost. The question is not
whether or not this is evidence of a "catastrophe", it is
why on Earth authors who cite this material interpret
non-stratified, poorly-stratified, "jumbled" deposits
with disarticulated skeletons as evidence of a global
catastrophe? It is a stretch, to say the least. It is far
from the only mechanism which could produce a
deposit with these features. There are many modern
processes, which can produce equivalent deposits
"jumbled together in no discernable order", and many
of these processes occur in Alaska and other arctic
areas today (including Siberia). How do you propose
eliminating these other processes as a possibility in
order that a "catastrophe" of regional or global scope
becomes the only viable hypothesis? Many authors
which cite this material as evidence do not even
bother mentioning the alternatives."

The fact of the matter is that deposits, which are identical to
those, which he interprets to be the result of an impact-generated
mega-tsunami, can be seen today within the Arctic permafrost
regions as the result of various permafrost and thermokarst
processes. Having conducted most of his PaleoIndian research
in the hot and dry Southwestern United States, these are
processes, with which Hibben likely was completely unfamiliar.

Mr. Grondine continued:

"Clearly Hibben's description of the area where he
made his point find and the location studied by the
later archaeologists you mention do not match."

In this case, Mr. Grondine is completely wrong as documented
by Thorson et al. (1978, 1980). Thorson et al. (1978, 1980) were
able to precisely locate the exact stratum in which the Hibben
allegedly found the Yuma point on the shore of Chinitna Bay,
southern Alaska. They were able to precisely relocated the exact
location of finds using photographs, which Hibben had taken, and
detailed directions, which Hibben had provided them in personal
correspondence for their research. In addition, Hibben's own
photographs showed that there had been an insignificant
modification of the coast by coastal erosion. Finally, as documented
in Thorson et al. (1978, 1980), they were able to match layer for
layer the stratigraphy observed by Hibben with the stratigraphy,
which they observed. Thorson et al. (1978, 1980) clearly demolishes
the claim by Mr. Grondine that the location, at which Hibben found
his “Yuma Point” at Chinitna Bay and the area and the area studied
by later archaeologists are different areas.

References Cited:

Thorson, R. M., Plaskett, D. C., and Dixon, E. J., 1978, Chinitna
Bay cultural resource study-The geology and archeology of the
southern shore of Chinitna Bay, Alaska. University of Alaska
Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Thorson, R. M., Plaskett, D. C., and Dixon, E. J., 1980, A reported
early-man site adjacent to southern Alaska's continental shelf:
A geologic solution to an archeologic enigma. Quaternary
Research. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-273. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(80)90033-2

Mr. Grondine continued:

"But then perhaps the point of their exercise was simply to
smear Hibbens and catastrophism?"

LOL, LOL, LOL. Catastrophists are paranoid group of people. :-) :-)
The fact of the matter is that Hibben's ideas are so lacking in any
substance and so discredited by later research that conventional
archaeologists and geologists by that time were totally indifferent
to his ideas. This paranoid feeling that conventional scientists are
out to suppressed and smear them is one reason that certain
catastrophists are regarded as amusing cranks

If Mr. Grondine would read Thorson et al. (1978, 1980), he would
find that the reason that they relocated the site, which Hibbens
(1943) reported on Chinitia Bay, was to relocate and test what
according to this paper were extensive and potentially significant
early archeologic sites. They though that this site provided a
possibly opportunity to test the Bering Landbridge hypothesis.
However, instead of Pleistcoene mammoth’s bones, they found
recent whale bones. Also, they found that the layer, which yielded
Hibben claimed to have yielded a Paleo-Indian "Yuma" point, was
only 170 to 430 years old according to a radiocarbon date from
piece of wood collected from that layer. This layer, Hibben's so-
called "habitation level" did not even contain any artifacts even
though it exposed for long distance along the shore of Chinitia
Bay.

By the way, Thorson et al. (1978, 1980) makes no mention of the
catastrophist ideas of Hibben (1943). Like many geologists and
arcaheologists of their time, they were likely completely
indifferent to his catastrophist ideas. Thorson et al. (1978, 1980)
investigated Hibben (1943) because they accepted what had wrote
about finding a significant a Paleo-Indian Site along the shore of
Chinitia Bay.

References Cited:

Thorson, R. M., Plaskett, D. C., and Dixon, E. J., 1978, Chinitna
Bay cultural resource study-The geology and archeology of the
southern shore of Chinitna Bay, Alaska. University of Alaska
Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Thorson, R. M., Plaskett, D. C., and Dixon, E. J., 1980, A reported
early-man site adjacent to southern Alaska's continental shelf:
A geologic solution to an archeologic enigma. Quaternary
Research. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-273. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(80)90033-2

Mr. Grondine continued:

"On the other hand, I can think of no reason why
Hibbens would engage in fraud. Provide me with
one and I'll consider your arguments.

If Mr. Grondine would read, Preston (1995), he would find that I
am not the person, who is arguing that Hibben committed fraud.
Rather, the allegations of fraud were raised by paleontologists,
geologists, and archaeologists, who directly with worked Hibben.
The numerous irregularities and contradictions in Hibben's
published research, which they interpreted to be evidence of fraud,
from what I can see, could just as easily be explained sloppiness,
poor management, and gross incompetence on Hibben's part.

I pointed out Preston (1995) because, in order to fully evaluate
Hibben (1943), people need to know that he is a very controversial
figure in American archaeology and not as well regarded by
conventional archaeologists as Mr. Grondine incorrectly portrays
him to be.

References Cited:

Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New
Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)

In reference to the "muck" deposits within the Fairbanks area,
Mr. Grondine wrote:

"You've intentionally (sic) mistated my point, Paul.
The only deposit of interest here is the Holocene
start deposit, with find."

No, I have not misstated your point. Your distinction between
Holocene and pre-Holocene "muck" within the Fairbanks area is
a scientifically bankrupt distinction. In the Fairbanks area, the
Holocene "muck" is virtually identical in composition, layering,
and stratigraphy to the pre-Holocene "muck". They differ mainly
in that the Holocene "muck" completely lacks the mummified
megafauna and any of the major beds of twisted and mangled wood,
which Hibben (1943) regarded as being created by repeated
volcanic catastrophes. Except for these two differences, the
parts of the Engineering and Fairbanks loesses and Ready Bullion
Formation, which contain archaeological deposits, are virtually
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. This is demonstrated by the numerous papers, to which
I provide citations to in my first post at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html

In addition, I am not misstating your point because both you and
Hibben (1943) are mistaken in assigning a Holocene age to beds,
which numerous studies clearly have demonstrated to range in
age from Late Pleistocene to Pliocene in age. The mummified
remains of extinct mammals and vast majority of beds of mangled
and twisted wood, which Hibben (1943) regarded to be evidence
of major catastrophes occur in loess and related deposits, which
are Late Pleistocene in age as demonstrated by the numerous papers
by Pewe, Muhs, Westgate, and others, which are listed at the end
of this post.

Hibben (1943) mistakenly regarded all of these "muck" deposits
to contain archaeological material. He failed to understand the
considerable extent that younger Holocene "muck" deposits and the
artifacts, which they contained, had been churned into older deposits
by mining operations, slumping from the sides, and material being
washed down the sides downing hydraulic mining. Inevitably, the
jumbled mass of reworked material, including artifacts, froze in
the Arctic climate into solid "muck", which Hibben carelessly
confused with in place "muck".

Mr. Grondine also wrote:

EP - Well, Paul, so far you have not mentioned any
researchers familiar with impact mega-tsunami, or who
would know what to look for. Some used to claim that
the dinosaurs were killed by food poisoning.- EP

After I stated

“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?.”

It does not make a single shred of difference, whether experts in
mega-tsunami have looked at the so-called Alaskan “muck” deposits.
All any geologist has to do is read the published detailed
descriptions of these sediments and compare them with what has
been published about mega-tsunami deposits in the scientific
literature, i.e. Dawson and Shi (2000), Dawson and Stewart (2007),
Kortekaas and Dawson (2007), and Scheffers Kelletat (2003, 2004), and
many others to find that there is complete lack of any similarity
between the so-called Alaskan “muck” and known and hypothetical
mega-tsunami deposits. Enough is known and has been published about
the physical characteristics of mega-tsunami deposits that it is
completely unnecessary for an expert in mega-tsunami deposits to
have examined them. Any competent geologist, by researching what has
been published in the scientific literature, would be quite capable
of recognizing any mega-tsunami deposits present within the so-called
Alaskan “muck” deposits of Hibben (1943).

References Cited;

Dawson, A. G., and S. Shi, 2000 Tsunami Deposits. Pure and
Applied Geophysics. vol. 157, pp. 875–897

Dawson, A. G., and I. Stewart, 2007, Tsunami deposits in the
geological record. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 200, no. 3-4, pp.
166-183.

Kortekaas, S., and A. G. Dawson, 2007, Distinguishing tsunami
and storm deposits: An example from Martinhal, SW Portugal.
Sedimentary Geology. vol. 200, no. 3-4, pp. 208-221.

Scheffers, A., and D. Kelletat, 2003, Sedimentologic and
geomorphologic tsunami imprints worldwide—a review.
Earth-Science Reviews. vol. no. 1, 63, pp. 83–92.

Scheffers, A., and D. Kelletat, 2004, Bimodal tsunami deposits – a
neglected feature in paleo-tsunami research Coastline Reports.
vol. 1, pp. 67-75.

Volume 200, Issues 3-4, (15 August 2007) of Sedimentary Geology
has an entire set of papers, which anyone can use to compare known
mega-tsunami and tsunami deposits against the Alaskan “muck”.

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“Paul - Why do I feel you're trying to obscure rather
than enlighten? Because generally, people use more
words when they're lying.”

The fact of matter is that I am not obscuring anything. Discussion
the origin of the Alaskan “muck” and explaining why conventional
scientists argue the way they do cannot be done in either short
sound bites or by mindless repeating carefully selected quotes from
Hibbens (1943) as he does. The fact he has to slander me, on the
laughably silly excuse that I use too many words, as far as I am
concerned is nothing more than a smokescreen on his part to hide
the fact that he completely lacks any credible evidence or
arguments, which support his scientifically bankrupt and theory
about there being mega-tsunami deposits in the Alaskan “musk”.

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“Why not use just a few words to tell me the reason
why Hibben's faked his research?”

The fact of the matter is that contrary to what Mr. Geodine states
above, I am not the one, who is claiming Hibben faked his
research. As noted previously, it was geologists, archaeologists,
and paleontologists, who worked closed with Hibben, who suspected
him of fraud as discussed in detail by Preston (1995). Preston (1995)
explains in great detail their reasons.

If Mr. Grondine would take the time to read Preston (1995), he
would find that archaeologists are divided on whether Hibben
faked some of his research or he was just extremely careless
and sloppy in his research techniques. The numerous
contradictions, inconsistencies in his papers; the errors, in which
he was caught by coworkers (such as sending out a bone from
another site to be radiocarbon dated labeled as being from Sandia
Cave); and so forth have been argued to be evidence of either
case depending a person’s point of view. The controversy over
fraud concerns his research at Sandia Cave and has absolutely
nothing to do with his ideas about catastrophism as is well
documented by Preston (1995).

I was not surprised at all when Preston (1995) was published.
When I was working at a certain Paleo-Indian site, I would
listen when the archaeologists there would get into discussions
about whether either Hibben or someone fabricated the Sandia
Points and whether Hibbens faked parts of his research or not.
In none of these discussions, did any consensus emerge as to what
really happened. Basically, Preston (1995) realized that it is
impossible for anyone to determine at this point in time whether
Hibben has been either fairly or unfairly accused of committing
fraud. It is a complex controversy, for which there appears to
be no final answer. I tend to believe that extremely careless
and sloppy research, record keeping, and sample labeling on
Dr. Hibben’s part has been misinterpreted as fraud.

References Cited:

Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New
Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)

Mr. Grondine also wrote:

“I can think of many who will go to extreme
efforts to avoid admitting to catastrophic
impacts having occurred, and I can tell you
why they do so... “

LOL, LOL, Oh well, this is nothing more the typical reaction
of pseudoscience, in which completely imaginary conspiracy or
conspiracy on the part of anonymous mainstream scientists is
blamed for the failure of a pet theory to gain any sort of general
acceptance

In another post, Mr., Grondine wrote:

“Having reflected overnight on Paul's
objections, a few more points are in
order.

The original deposits which (sic) Gibben
observed were destroyed by the hydraulic
mining operation which exposed them. How
equivalent the deposits which Paul cited
stuides of were to the ones (sic) Gibben's
observed I can't say, but there is no
resemblance.”

This statement is false to the point of being pure nonsense. As
previously noted, Hibben (1943) 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. These
mucks deposits are from four to one hundred
feet thick and are especially well known in the
vicinity of Fairbanks, Circle , and other gold
mining centers of the Upper Yukon and the
Tanana where the muck overlies auriferous
gravels. Muck deposits of considerable
thickness, however, are found in the lower
reaches of the Yukon, on the Koyukuk River,
on the Kuskokwim and on several places along
the Arctic coast, and so may be considered to
extend in greater and or lesser thickness over all
the unglaciated of the northern peninsula.
"

As Hibben (1943) clearly states above, his “muck” deposits underlie
large parts of Alaska. It is clear that the extent of the deposits,
which Hibben (1943) called "muck" covered far too much area for
hydraulic mining to have destroyed them. Although the original
outcrops would have been destroyed by hydraulic mining, these
deposits are extensive enough, according to Hibben's (1943)
own descriptions, where hydraulic mining would only have
created new outcrops as it destroyed the old ones.

In the same paragraph, Hibben (1943) states:

"In addition to amorphous bodies of loess material,
the muck contains interbeddded volcanic ash layers,
lenses of clear ice and peat, and abundant animal
and vegetable material, the whole frozen into a solid
mass."

Comparing how Hibben (1943) describes what he calls "muck" and
what Dr. Pewe, Muhs, Westgate and many other Quaternary geologists
have published in the 60+ years since 1943 it is quite clear that
the so-called Alaskan "muck" includes what is now known as the
Engineer Loess, Goldstream Loess, Ready Bullion Formation, and other
stratigraphic units. These and other stratigraphic units, which are
described in the in modern literature, consist of the same loess and
related sediments that overlie the gold-bearing, "auriferous", gravels,
which contain peat beds, buried "forests of trees", volcanic ash
beds, vertebrate fossils, the mummified animal remains, permafrost,
and so forth, which comprise the "muck" of Hibben (1943).

The deposits described by conventional geologists even contain the
same "canyons and arroyo cuts" filled with "twisted and torn trees
piled in splintered masses" as noted in Hibben (1943). There is
enough of a significant and a striking correspondence between the
deposits described by Hibben (1943) and those studied in next 60+
years to see that they are clearly the same deposits. They found
that certain aspects of deposits to have been grossly exaggerated
and misrepresented by Hibben (1943).

Finally, although the original outcrops, which he examined were
destroyed by mining, it does not make any difference as it is
nonsensical to argue that either impact generated mega-tsunami
or other related catastrophe large enough to wipe out entire species
is going to create a deposit of such limited extent that they will
be wiped out by a single mining operation. If these deposits were
truly the result of some sort gigantic cataclysmic event, they would
blanket the countryside to the extent that no amount of hydraulic
mining could destroy them.

The fact of the matter, is that the deposits studied by various
geologists and archaeologists in the past 60+ years are the same
deposits, which Hibben (1943) studied, even if some of the
outcrops have changed as a result of hydraulic mining. As far
as I am concerned, the implied claim that there is no evidence
for the catastrophes, which Dr. Hibben talked, because hydraulic
mining has destroyed them makes as much sense as the "dog ate
my homework excuse".

Mr. Grondine continued:

“Taking Paul's claim at face value, the puzzle here
is why (sic) Gibben's would intentionally lie about
what he saw, when those who were there with him
at the time were still alive. For that matter, why
would he report something so extraordinary in the
first place? The man was a leading archaeologist.”

The fact of the matter is that contrary to what Mr. Geodine states
above, I am not the one, who is claiming Hibben faked his
research. As noted previously, it was geologists, archaeologists,
and paleontologists, who worked closed with Hibben, who
accused him of fraud as discussed in detail by Preston (1995).

Again, I am not accusing him of intentionally lying. I am just
saying, as he did with the sediments and psuedoarchaeological
site that he found at Chinitna Bay, he was sloppy in his
observations and descriptions concerning the Alaskan “muck” and
being completely unfamiliar with loess, permafrost, and periglacial
processes, he completely misinterpreted, what are now recognized
as typical normal periglacial sediments, to be the result of
“extraordinary” catastrophic processes. Having done PaleoIndian
research in the hot and arid climate, he was simply quite ignorant
of how to interpret the sediments, which he briefly studied in the
cold Arctic climate of Alaska.

References Cited:

Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New
Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“On the other hand, given the use others
have made of Gibben's reports, I could
understand why his observations would
be "questioned" by later researchers. I
doubt that those studies were "unbiased".

As noted above, Mr, Geodine is completely wrong in thinking
that the controversy concerning Hibben’s research has
anything to do with his catastrophist ideas. Preston (1995) has
documented in great detail that the allegations about fraud on
the part of Hibben are almost entirely related to his research
at Sandia Cave.

His research at Chinitna Bay is disputed because the sediments,
in which he found his alleged Paleo-Indian site and mammoth
remains were found to be 9,000 years too young to have contained
them. Although the precise locations and strata, at which Hibben
(1943) allegedly found his artifacts and mammoths, were located
with absolute certainty, Thorson et al. (1978, 1980) found neither
the artifacts nor fossil bones, which Hibben described. All they
found were recent whale bones. They discovered that Hibben was
even wrong about his Alaskan “muck” outcropping along the
shore of Chinitna Bay. It is quite clear that Hibben was quite
clueless about what he found in Alaska and, as a result, grossly
misinterpreted both how old it was and how it was formed.

References Cited:

Preston, Douglas, 1995, The mystery of Sandia Cave. The New
Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)

Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett and E. J. Dixon, 1978, Chinitna Bay
cultural resource study-The geology and archeology of the southern
shore of Chinitna Bay, Alaska. University of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks, Alaska.

Thorson, R. M., D. C. Plaskett and E. J. Dixon, 1980, A reported
early-man site adjacent to southern Alaska's continental shelf:
A geologic solution to an archeologic enigma. Quaternary
Research. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-273. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(80)90033-2

Mr, Grondine wrote:

"Of course, the same has happened recently to Schultz
et al.'s work at Rio Cuarto. And then there's the (sic)
Sakhalinda crater."

The problem is that some serious holes appeared in their
interpretations when this theory was scrutinized as more data
collected. This might be a case of a beautiful hypothesis being
mugged by ugly facts.

More information can be found in: “What Caused Argentina's
Mystery Craters?” By Ben Harder, National Geographic News,
May 9, 2002 at:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0509_020509_glassmeteorite.html

A significant paper is:

Cione A. L., Tonni, E. P., San Cristóbal, J., Hernández, P. J.,
Benítez, D. F. , Bordignon, F., Perí, J. A., 2002, Putative
Meteoritic Craters in Río Cuarto (Central Argentina)
Interpreted as Eolian Structures. Earth, Moon, and Planets.
vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 9-24.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/moon/2002/00000091/00000001/05090331?crawler=true

The Sakhalin impact crater, I am not familiar with. There is a
paper, to which I do not have access:

Levin, B. W., Gretskaya, E. V. and Nemchenko, G. S., 2006, A new
astrobleme in the Pacific Ocean Doklady Akademii Nauk. vol. 411,
no.. 2, pp. 259–261.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xn9n806472x17535/

Below are some basic references concerning the so-called Alaskan
“muck”, which provide a an overview of their stratigraphy, chronology,
and origin.

Berger, Glenn W., 2003, Luminescence chronology of Late
Pleistocene loess-paleosol and tephra sequences near Fairbanks,
Alaska. Quaternary Research. vol. 60, no. 1, Pages 70-83.

Bettis, E. A., Muhs, D. R., Robert, H. M., and Wintle, A. G., 2003,
Last Glacial loess in the conterminous USA. Quaternary Science
Reviews. vol. 22, no. 18-19, pp. 1907-1946

Frenchen, M., and Yamskikh, 1995, Upper Pleistocene loess
stratigraphy in the southern Yenisei Siberia area. Jounral
of the Geological Society of London. vol. 156, pp. 515-525.

Gutherie, R. D., 1990, Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppes:
The Story of Blue Babe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.

Hibben, Frank C., 1942, Evidences of early man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, pp. 254-259.

Hibben, Frank C., 1946. Lost Americans. Crowell. New York,
New York.

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., and Begét, J. E., 2001, Vegetation
and paleoclimate of the last interglacial period, central Alaska
Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 20, no. 1-3, pp. 41-61.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A., III, McGeehin, J., Been,
J. M., Begét, 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.

Muhs, D. R., McGeehin, J. P, Beann, J., and Fisher, E., 2004,
Holocene loess deposition and soil formation as competing
processes, Matanuska Valley, southern Alaska. Quaternary
Research. vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 265-276

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., and Begét, J., 2004, Stratigraphy and
palaeoclimatic significance of Late Quaternary loess–palaeosol
sequences of the Last Interglacial–Glacial cycle in central
Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, no. 18-19,
pp. 1947-1986.

McDowell, P. F., and Edwards, M. E., 2001, Evidence of
Quaternary climatic variations in a sequence of loess and
related deposits at Birch Creek, Alaska: implications for the
Stage 5 climatic chronology. Quaternary Science Reviews,
vol. 20, no.1-3, pp. 63-76.

Pewe, T. L., 1955, Origin of the upland silt near Fairbanks,
Alaska. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 66,
no. 6, pp. 699-724.

Pewe, T. L., 1975a, Quaternary Geology of Alaska. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 835, 145 pp.
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/pp/pp835

Pewe, T. L., 1975b, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in
Central Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
no. 862, 32 pp. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/pp/pp862

Pewe, T. L., 1989, Quaternary stratigraphy of the Fairbanks
area, Alaska. in Late Cenozoic History of the Interior Basins
of Alaska and the Yukon. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
no. 1026, pp. 72-77.

Pewe, T. L., Berger, G. W., Westgate, J. A., Brown, P. A., and
Leavitt, S. W., 1997, Eva Interglacial Forest Bed, Unglaciated
East-Central Alaska. Geological Society of America Special
Paper no. 319, 54 pp.

Rainey, F., 1940, Archaeological Investigations in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 5, pp. 299-308.

Rutter, N. W., Rokosh, D., Evans, M. E., Little, E. C., Chlachula,
J., and Velichko, A., 2003, Correlation and interpretation of
paleosols and loess across European Russia and Asia over
the last interglacial-glacial cycle. Quaternary Research.
vol. 60, no. 1, Pages 101-109.

Westgate, J. A., Stemper, B. A., and Pewe, T. L., 1990, A 3
m.y. record of Pliocene-Pleistocene loess in interior Alaska.
Geology. vol. 18, no. 9, p. 858-861.

Westgate, John A., Preece, Shari J., and Pewe, Troy L., 2003,
The Dawson Cut Forest Bed in the Fairbanks area, Alaska, is
about two million years old. Quaternary Research. vol. 60,
no. 1, Pages 2-8.

Yours,

Paul

No comments: