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



Wednesday, 16 April 2008

New Meteorite Crater Discovered in New Mexico

New Meteorite Crater Discovered in New Mexico

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 16 09:54:43 EDT 2008

There is a paper, which is in press about the discovery of a new
meteorite structure in New Mexico. It is:

Fackelman, S. P. J. R. Morrow, C. Koeberl, T. H. McElvain, in press,
Shatter cone and microscopic shock-alteration evidence for a post-
Paleoproterozoic terrestrial impact structure near Santa Fe, New
Mexico, USA. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Accepted
Manuscript, Available online 7 April 2008,
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.033 ( http://dx.doi.org)

The abstract reads in part:

“Field mapping, morphologic description, and petrographic
analysis of recently discovered shatter cones within
Paleoproterozoic crystalline rocks exposed over an area >5
km2, located ~8 km northeast of Santa Fe, New Mexico,
USA, give robust evidence of a previously unrecognized
terrestrial impact structure. Herein, we provisionally
name this the “Santa Fe impact structure”. The shatter
cones are composed of nested sub-conical, curviplanar,
and flat joint surfaces bearing abundant curved and
bifurcating striations that strongly resemble the multiply
striated joint surfaces (MSJS) documented from shatter
cones at Vredefort dome.”

and

“The PFs and PDFs are dominated by a basal (0001)
crystallographic orientation, which indicate a peak shock
pressure of ~5–10 GPa that is consistent with shatter
cone formation.”

Yours,

Paul H.

Friday, 11 April 2008

Why is Mars Lopsided? - Giant Impact Hypothesized

Why is Mars Lopsided? - Giant Impact Hypothesized

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 11 10:16:23 EDT 2008

Why is Mars Lopsided?, The Martian Chronicles

http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/why-is-mars-lopsided/

WHAT HAPPENED TO MARS? by Kelly Beatty

http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/what-happened-to-mars

Kerr, R. A., 2008, An Early Big Hit to Mars May Have
Scarred the Planet for Life. Science. vol. 320. no. 5873,
pp. 165 - 166.

J.C. Andrews-Hanna, M.T. Zuber, and W.B. Banerdt,

"The Martian dichotomy: An elliptical impact basin?",
39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference,
abstract #1980, 2008.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2008/pdf/1980.pdf

DO MEGA IMPACTS LEAVE CRATERS? CHARACTERIZING MEGA
IMPACTS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE MARS HEMISPHERIC
DICHOTOMY. by Margarita M. Marinova, Oded Aharonson, and Erik Asphaug,
Seventh International Conference on Mars

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/pdf/3354.pdf

Yours,

Paul H.

Monday, 7 April 2008

Tektites and "Fused Glass" in Israel ???

Tektites and "Fused Glass" in Israel ???

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 7 13:23:46 EDT 2008

In sci.archaeology USENET discussion, The following
statement was made:

"There is an area in Israel where Sodom and Gomorrah
are believed by most historians to have once been.
The plain is littered with spherules of fused glass,
which only forms when very high heat is combined with
great pressure. ..."

This claim was allegedly made on a PBS show in the
mid-1990s according to a post in the thread "Re: Nobel
Laureates v Creationists", Message-ID:
<iojbj0ledno57l9u4f19i9k7mndatv28ac at 4ax.com>,
by "Scotius" at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/13ce10fb77d1fc61/54edd76022891b71?lnk=st&q=%22fused+glass%22+%22Sodom+and+Gomorrah%22#54edd76022891b71

Does anyone on this list either know what PBS special
is being referred to by this comment or primary
literature that documents the occurrence of "spherules
of fused glass, which only forms when very high heat
is combined with great pressure " within any part of
Israel? Is this claim about "spherules of fused glass"
having been found in Israel being mentioned in a
mid-1990s PBS Special a figment of "Scotius"
imagination?

While trying finding out about the occurrence of "fused
glass" in Israel, my web search found reference to
"tektites" having been found in articles by written
pseudoscientific alternative archaeologists including:

1. THE ATLANTEANS Tutors or Tyrants?
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/atlanteans.html

2. ATLANTIS 2012 AND THE AGE OF REVEALING
The High Window Articles by Michael Tsarion.
http://taroscopes.com/highwindowsarticles/2012.age.reckoning.html

Both of the above web pages stated:

"Why are radioactive tektites and isotopes found all over
the Dead Sea basin and at the very location posited for the
ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

and 3. Atlantis, Alien Visitation, and Genetic Manipulation - 06'
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/atlantis_alienvisitation/atlantis_alienvisitation06.htm

"How does the detractor explain the presence of
radioactive tektites and isotopes at the very
sites now known to be the Biblical Sodom and
Gomorrah and Jericho?"

None of these web pages provide any source for tektites
being found in Israel.

Has any credible source reported anything about tektites
being found in Israel? Or is this usual claptrap that alternative
archaeologists post to the Internet?

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Cosmogentic dating, and bad science on ancient meteorite impactor?

Cosmogentic dating, and bad science on ancient meteorite impactor?

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 2 13:12:04 EDT 2008

Dear Friends,

In” [meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2”
< http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-April/043471.html >,
I wrote:

“Hermanns et al. (2006) also noted of the younger deposits, which
contain the frictionite:

“Pieces of wood recovered from a reconnaissance gallery
in the Tauferberg gave a conventional 14C age of 8710+/-150
years BP (Heuberger, 1966), and an AMS 14C age of 8705+/-
55 years BP (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1998),”

References Cited:

Hermanns, R.., L.. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, D.
Stromeyer, O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple rock-slope collapses
from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and western Norway. Engineering
Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, pp. 94-108.”

Note, the other two references are:

“Heuberger, H., 1966, Gletschergeschichtliche Untersuchungen in
den Zentralalpen zwischen Sellrain-und Otztal. Wissenschaftliche
Alpenvereinshefte. no. 20.

Ivy-Ochs, S., H. Heuberger, P. W. Kubik, H. Kerschner, G. Bonani,
M. Frank, and C. Schluchter, 1998, The age of the Köfels event.
Relative, 14C and cosmogenic isotope dating of an early Holocene
landslide in the central Alps (Tyrol, Austria). Zeitschrift fur
Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie. vol. 34, pp. 57–70.

In “Cuneiform clay tablet translated for the first time” (EurekAlert
(press release), DC, March 31, 2008 )
< http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php >,
the authors of “'A Sumerian observation of the Kofels' impact event'”
state that this so-called impact is recorded in a tablet dated about 700 BC
(2700 BP) and occurred 3123 BC (5123 BP).

If the above radiocarbon dates are calibrated to calendar years, they
indicate the Kofels event occurred about 9700 BP calendar years. This
is approximately 7000 years before the event was recorded and
approximately 4600 years before they argue that this so-called “impact”
occurred.

They dismiss the radiocarbon dates by claiming that the wood samples
were somehow magically “contaminated” by the impact. I say “magically”,
because there is not a practical way that an impact, especially an imaginary
one, could have contaminated the wood samples buried by the landslide.

The radiocarbon dates are supported and the claims of “contamination”
are refuted by cosmogenic isotope dating, which would be unaffected
by an impact. Cosmogenic isotope dating by Ivy-Ochs et al. (1998)
that yielded dates of 8880+/-490, 10,070+/-520, and 10,630+/-
570 calendar years BP. These dates are very close to the calibrated
radiocarbon date of about 9,700 BP. Thus, they confirm that the
Köfels landslide occurred thousand of years before either the
Sumerian tablet was argued to have been made, or the when the
so-called “impact” was suppose to have occurred. The Köfels
landslide is much too old to have any connection with any of them.

Reference Cited

Ivy-Ochs, S., H. Heuberger, P. W. Kubik, H. Kerschner, G. Bonani,
M. Frank, and C. Schluchter, 1998, The age of the Köfels event.
Relative, 14C and cosmogenic isotope dating of an early Holocene
landslide in the central Alps (Tyrol, Austria). Zeitschrift fur
Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie. vol. 34, pp. 57–70.

Cosmogenic isotope dating links

Cosmogenic isotope dating of a Sioux Quartzite erosion surface,
Southwestern Minnesota by Carrie Patterson, MGS
http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/beryl10/SiouxIntro.html

Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tcn.htm

Additional thoughts on the Köfels "impact" / landslide can be found at:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-April/043471.html

Yours,

Paul H.

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Sardis Iron

Sardis Iron

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 1 12:08:27 EDT 2008

Sean T. Murray wrote:

“There is a write-up on Sardis that was on the Georgia
Mineral Newsletter, Volume IX, No. 4, Winter 1956 (part 1)
and Volume X, No. 4, Winter 1957 titled "Meteorites in
Georgia" by E. P. Henderson and A. S. Furcron. (There
are also reprint of the document from 1966). From the
Department of Mines, Mining, & Geology, 19 Hunter
Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia.”

Two other references for the Sardis Iron are:

Henderson, E. P. and Cooke, C. W., 1942, The Sardis (Georgia)
meteorite. Proceedings of the U S. National Museum. vol. 92,
pp. 141—150.

V. F. Buchwald, V. F., 1977, The Mineralogy of Iron Meteorites.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series
A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 286, No. 1336,
pp. 453-491.

Yours,

Paul H.

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 1 08:59:48 EDT 2008

In "Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?",

Sterling K. Webb wrote:

“See, I started out sceptical, and now I'm not so sure...

This collector considers "köfelsite" as an impactite:
http://www.somerikko.net/collection/index.html
"Age between 8000 and 16000 years is from glass.
Theory has been recently presented that köfels has been
formed during a giant landslide about 9000 years ago.
That landslide was so huge that rock melted because
friction. So there is still a possibility that Köfels is not
an impact structure. However, there is lots of big
landslides in Alps but no other similar cases is found
yet. Also PDF's in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDF's are produced only by impacts."
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm

There has been iridium analysis, but it's inconclusive.”

The origin of the pumice, called either “hyalomylonites” or
“frictionites” associated with the Köfels has been studied in
great detail by:

Erismann, T. H., 1977, Der bimsstein von Köfels impaktit oder
friktionit?. Material und Technik. vol. 5, pp. 190–196.

and Erismann, T. H., H. Heuberger, and E. Preuss, 1977, Der
Bimsstein von Köfels (Tirol), ein Bergsturz-“Friktionit. Mineralogy
and Petrology. vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 67-119.

The abstract to Erismann et al. (1977) stated:

“For more than a century the genesis of the fused rocks
found in the landslide masses of Köfels (Ötztal, Tyrol)
has remained enigmatic. The initially promoted hypothesis
of a volcanic origin could not be backed by sufficient
evidence. So in the last decade the possibility of a meteorite
impact has been accepted by a large number of scientists.
It is, however, by no means in accordance with all facts
observed. In 1971, Preuss presented the idea of the melting
heat being generated by the friction between sliding and
stationary rock surfaces. As this working hypothesis
proved to be in good accordance with petrographic and
geomorphological evidence it was studied in detail by the
authors in cooperation with the Swiss Federal Laboratory
for Testing Materials (EMPA). The corresponding research
project (ldquoBig Sliderdquo) was based on a careful
analysis of the effects of the energy generated by the
landslide. By setting up plausible models for movement,
heat generation, and heat transfer and by solving the
resulting differential equations it became evident that —
as far as the landslide masses did not glide on a very
thick layer of stone powder (dynamically a rather
unprobable supposition)-large amounts of fused rock
(ldquofrictioniterdquo, for definition see chapter 2.2) must
have been produced. The enormous size of the particular
landslide was recognized as a determining factor in this
connection. The theoretical results thus obtained could
be backed experimentally by producting artificial pumice
under conditions approaching those of the Köfels landslide.”

Erismann et al. (1977) fairly well demonstrates that the estimated
kinetic energy of the rock mass displaced by the landslide would
have generated the heat necessary to melt the rock and form the
“pumice”, which they called “frictionite”. The frictionite occurs
in dikes several decimeters to meter thick at the top of the landslide
deposit.

The Köfels landslide, about 2 to 3 cubic kilometers in mass, is the
**largest** landslide in Europe. It is not surprising that it has some
unique aspects to it being the only one of its size in the region.

Another study, which examined glass found in the Köfels landslide is:

Masch, L., H.. R. Wenk, and E. Preuss, 1985. Electron microscopy
study of hyalomylonites-evidence for frictional melting in landslides.
Tectonophysics. vol. 115, pp. 131–160.

They studied glass, which they called “hyalomylonite”, which occurs
in the Köfels landslide deposits. It differs from frictionite in that it
occurs as veins 1 mm to 3 cm thick and lacks porosity. from their
analysis, they concluded that the hyalomylonite was created by
kinetic heating of the rock during the landslide.

Similar hyalomylonite / frictionite deposits has also been found in
megalandslides in the Himalayas of Nepal and Peru as discussed by:

Heuberger, H., L. Masch, E. Preuss, and A. Schrocker, 1984,
Quaternary Landslides and Rock Fusion in Central Nepal and in the
Tyrolean Alps. Mountain Research and Developments. vol. 4, no. 4,
pp. 345-362.

Weidinger, J. T., J.-M. Schramm, and R. Surenian, 1996, On preparatory
causal factors, initiating the prehistoric Tsergo Ri landslide (Langthang
Himal, Nepal). Tectonophysics. vol. 260, no. 1-3, pp. 95-107.

and

Legros, F., J.-M. Cantagrel, and B. Devouard, 2000, Pseudotachylyte
(Frictionite) at the Base of the Arequipa Volcanic Landslide Deposit
(Peru): Implications for Emplacement Mechanisms. The Journal of
Geology. vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 601–611.

Hermanns et al. (2006) presents significant problem for the impact
hypothesis in that he found that there is evidence of multiple landslides.
It was the largest and youngest of these landslides that created the
frictionite when it slid over the older deposits. To explain multiple
periods of landsliding, a person would have to argue that two different
impacts occurred at virtually same spot at different times separated by
a significant period of time.

Hermanns et al. (2006) also noted of the younger deposits, which
contain the frictionite:

“Pieces of wood recovered from a reconnaissance gallery
in the Tauferberg gave a conventional 14C age of 8710+/-150
years BP (Heuberger, 1966), and an AMS 14C age of 8705+/-
55 years BP (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1998),”

References Cited:

Hermanns, R.., L.. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, D.
Stromeyer, O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple rock-slope collapses
from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and western Norway. Engineering
Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, pp. 94-108.

-- Alledged PDFs --

Impacts and meteorites
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm

The above web page, states

“Also PDFs in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDFs are produced only by impacts.”

The alleged PDFs found in the deposits of the Köfels landslide were
examined by Dr. Christian Koeberl according to:

Deutsch, A., C. Koeberl, J.D. Blum, B.M. French, B.P. Glass,
R. Grieve, P. Horn, E.K. Jessberger, G. Kurat, W.U. Reimold,
J. Smit, D. stoffler, and S.R. Taylor, 1994, The impact-flood
connection: Does it exist? Terra Nova. vol. 6, pp. 644-650.

This paper reports that Dr. Koeberl found them **not** to be PDFs.
Rather, he identified them to be nonPDF llamellar deformation
features typical of tectonic, not impact, processes.

How these llamellar features formed is discussed by:

Leroux, H., and J.-C. Doukhan, 1993, Dynamic deformation of quartz
in the landslide of Koefels, Austria. European Journal of Mineralogy.
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 893-902.

-- Additional Note --

Sorenson et al. (2003) concluded:

“Analysis of the Köfels sturzstrom seems to indicate
that most aspects can be explained without recourse to
exotic emplacement scenarios. The bulk of the material
resembles the debris from an energetic but conventional
landslide.”

Reference Cited

Sorensen, S.-A., and Berthold Bauer, 2003, On the dynamics of
the Köfels sturzstrom. Geomorphology, vol. 54, no. 1-2, pp. 11-19.

Yours,

Paul H.