New Analysis Of Odessa Crater Impact Published

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 30 12:48:22 EDT 2007

Dear Friends,

A paper, which present a detailed analysis of the Odessa crater, Texas
has been published in the journal of “International Journal of Impact
Engineering”. The paper is:

Littlefield, D. L., P. T. Bauman, and A. Molineuxc, 2007, Analysis
of formation of the Odessa crater. International Journal of Impact
Engineering. vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 1953–1961.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3K-4MS9RDR-1&_user=3787556&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000061383&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3787556&md5=ea5c24c5520861f070d6d17e841771ac

In an hydrodynamics codes analysis, which integrated the geotechnical
(mechanical) properties of the target material along with details of the
topology of the crater, this study concluded:

1. The crater resulted from a near-grazing impact at very high obliquity,
likely greater than 60 degrees;

2. The depth-to-diameter ratio of the Odessa crater “is in a range
that can be reproduced only with a high-obliquity impact";

3. The meteorite likely came from either the southwest or northeast;

4. meteorite impact energy was more than 50 times larger than
originally estimated.

and 5. the meteor diameter was much larger than 2 meters.

Yours,

Paul H.

New Atacama Desert Meteorite Stewnfields Paper Published

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 30 09:10:41 EDT 2007

Dear Friends,

There is an interesting peer-reviewed paper in the October issue
of the "Journal of Arid Environments", which provides a detailed
analysis of 62 non-paired meteorites found in the Atacama Desert
of Chile. The paper is:

Munoza, C., N. Guerraa, J. Martinez-Friasb, Author, R. Lunarc
and J. Cerdaa, 2007, The Atacama Desert: A preferential arid region
for the recovery of meteorites—Find location features and strewnfield
distribution patterns. Journal of Arid Environments. vol. 71, no. 2,
pp. 188-200.

Among other analyses, they mapped the principle strewnfield
distribution patterns and summarized the general nature of their
character. They found that these finds typically:

(1) showed more than a quarter of their body exposed;

(2) underwent some sign of terrestrial weathering;

(3) stone meteorites have a brownish desert-varnish on hand specimen;

(4) are non-oriented pieces;

and (5) are commonly members of a greater mass distributed in a
certain place.

The Atacama Central Depression was where the most meteorites
were found and the distribution of saline deposits influenced the
weathering and preservation of meteorites.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Russian Language Scale Cubes

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 27 12:40:46 EDT 2007

Has anyone ever produced any foreign language scale cubes?

I am wondering if any scale cubes using Russian characters
have been made?

Yours,

Paul H.

My Apologies to Dirk was “The so-called "impactite bed"”

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 26 11:52:18 EDT 2007

Dear Dirk and List,

My formal apologies Dirk. It is early in morning and
I totally screwed up getting the quotes correct.

I apologize for associating you with ramblings for which
You have no responsibility.

It is distracting how the list server double spaces the lines
of quoted text indicated by the “<” or “>” symbol. Can
someone stop it from doing this?

Dirk wrote:

"Paul and List,

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BELOW and I DO NOT AGREE
WITH HIS INTERPETAIONS! It was written by EPG:
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o
The black impactite layer is pretty amazing ? I
never expected it to be that dense or clearly
obvious to the naked eye - my guess is that it
extends throughout other sandstone formation in the
region"

My Formal Apologies.

Paul H.

The so-called "impactite bed"

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 26 10:39:13 EDT 2007

Mr. Grondine wrote:

“Yes. Here you go:

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109768&org=NSF&from=news


error [[[drtanuki wrote: ]]] error
Note: this was not Dirk Ross`s quote; quote by E.P. Grondine-- later corrected in later post by Paul H.


“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o



The black impactite layer is pretty amazing – I

never expected it to be that dense or clearly

obvious to the naked eye - my guess is that it

extends throughout other sandstone formations

in the region –“


What is seen there is ***not*** a layer of impactite. The “black
mat,” as archaeologist call this layer, is organic-rich sediment,
which was deposited in a low-energy cienega (stream or creek
bog) environment. "Black mats" have been known to archaeologists
for decades. What these black mats represent, along with wet-
meadow soils and pond deposits that include diatomite and marls,
are periods of higher water tables and increased ground water
discharge. They are not all of the same age.



Haynes (2003) stated:



"Younger Dryas (YD) age "black mats" (YDBM),

while variable, represent moister conditions

than before or after deposition.


Higher water tables, some perched, are indicated by

Wet meadow soils, algal mats, and pond sediments

Including marls and diatomites, some of which are

white. Geochronological study of over 50 localities

from Arizona to Canada reveal that YDBMs contain

the earliest post-Clovis archaeological evidence and

overlie the last Rancholabrean faunas.



Upland or lowland YDBMs occur sometimes as facies

Or catenas. Regional YD paleosols include the Brady

Of Nebraska and the Leonard of the Dakotas. On

uplands these are darker and thicker in swales and

may reflect perched groundwater or poor drainage.

In lowlands they occur deeply buried beneath

floodplains; in some colluvial settings multiple black

bands are separated by lighter colored slope wash.

Some YDBMs are related to springfed meadows and

ponds formed during increased-discharge periods."



and Huckleberry et al. (2004) stated:



"After ca. 11,000 14C yr B.P., sandy and finer

alluvial muds commonly contain a dark organic

zone or "black mat." These black mats are related

to elevated water tables and increased spring

activity and cluster in age at 9,500 to 10,500

14C yr B.P. (Quade et al., 1998). Quade et al.

(1998) suggest these black mats and associated

spring-fed channels formed in response to

moister conditions during the Younger Dryas

and preserve the last episode of increased spring

discharge before substantial drying occurred in

the early Holocene."


Also, other "black mats" can be found in sediments both post-

dating and predating the Clovis Culture all over the United States.

For example, in the Lake King basin in Trans-Pecos Texas, black

mats have been dated at 17,200, 19,000, 22,600, and 24,700

radiocarbon years BP. Quade et al. (1998) decribes several "black

mats", which have been dated as being much younger than Clovis,

i.e. 1450 , 2320, 6670, 7920, and 7230 BP. In Figure 11, they show

a picture of a "modern black mat marginal to a small spring-fed

channel below Indian Springs Ranch in Steptoe Valley, northeast

Nevada". Black mats are unique neither to Clovis Sites nor times.

All the black mats indicates is that they occupying locations

adjacent to spring-fed wet meadows and channels during periods

of high ground water table and discharge. All they do is indicate

that dramatic climate change occurred during the Younger Dryas.

Of course, that is well known and the significant question is what

caused it.


The black layers, which are seen in photographs are **not**

composed of impactite. These black mats, which occur at some
Paleo-Indian sites are only hypothesized to contain microscopic

impactites. It is quite impossible to see such impactites in any

photographs. the see the alleged impactites, a person has to
conduct a detailed microscopic analysis of the material.


When I worked at the Lubbock Lake Site in Lubbock Texas,

I actually excavated bison bones and artifacts from the “black
mats”, which occur at that site. If only I had known the
controversy, which they would cause, I would have copies of
the slide, which I took before giving them to the Lubbock Lake
Site Museum.

Given all of the fuss about these black mats, I should contact my
archaeologists friends to get some samples to look at for myself.


References Cited


Haynes, C. V. Jr, 2003, Younger Dryas "Black Mats"

and other stratigraphic manifestations of climate change in

North America. XVI INQUA congress; Shaping the Earth; a

Quaternary perspective. Congress of the International Union

for Quaternary Research, 2003, vol. 16, pp. 191. [gsa.confex.com]


Huckleberry, G., C. Beck, G. T. Jones, A. Holmes, M. Cannon

S. Livingston, and J. M. Broughton, 2001, Terminal Pleistocene/

Early Holocene Environmental Change at the Sunshine Locality,

North-Central Nevada, U.S.A. Quaternary Research. vol. 55,

no. 3, pp. 303-312.


Quade, J., R. M. Forester, W. L. Pratt, and C. Carter, 1998, Black

mats, spring-fed streams, and lateglacial-age recharge in the southern

Great Basin. Quaternary Research. vol. 49, pp. 129-148.


Other discussion of paleoenvironmental significance of

“Black Mats” can be found in:


Mehringer, P. J., Jr., and C. V. Haynes, Jr., 1965, The Pollen

Evidence for the Environment of Early Man and Extinct

Mammals at the Lehner Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona

American Antiquity. vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 17-23.


Waters, M. R., 1991, The Geoarchaeology of Gullies and Arroyos

in Southern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology. vol. 18, no. 2,

pp. 141-159.


Waters, M. R., 2000, Alluvial stratigraphy and geoarchaeology

in the American Southwest. Geoarchaeology. Vol. 15, no. 6,

pp 537-577.


Waters, M. R., and D. D. Kuehn, 1996, The Geoarchaeology of

Place: The Effect of Geological Processes on the Preservation

and Interpretation of the Archaeological Record American

Antiquity. vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 483-497.


Yours,

Paul

Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 4 (Long)

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 26 12:01:45 EDT 2007

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
Pre-Clovis 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 “Pre-Clovis”.

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 Pre-Clovis occupation of North America, with
which I greatly sympathize. The question is not whether there are
Pre-Clovis 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 Pre-Clovis 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 Savannah 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.

Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 3 (Long)

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 20 13:03:58 EDT 2007

Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part 3 (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 ,
and http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html

In the thread "[meteorite-list] Intro the muck once again",
Mr. Grondine wrote:

"I wrote:

"That point may be placed between say about 45,000
BCE and 8,249 BCE.?"

Paul wrote:

"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."

What I claimed was "between". Last time I checked
11,000 BP came between 45,000 BCE and 8,249 BCE.
But then perhaps its new math, or new archaeology, or
something else. I go with something else."

Again, the fact of the matter is that there is a complete lack of any
evidence for Pale-Indian points older than 11,000 to 13,000 BP,
if you include recent discoveries in Maryland that were announced
after my last post. Although there artifacts older than 13,000 BP
have been found in the New World, none of them are the type of
Pale-Indian artifacts, which Hibben (1943) discussed having found
in Alaska. Thus, your age range from 45,000 BCE and 8,249 BCE
is completely wrong. This is well documented in innumerable papers
and textbooks, which Mr. Grondine either has not bothered to read
or simply ignores because they completely refute his pet theories.
For the details, a person can go look at:

Haynes, C. V., Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion.
Science. vol. 145, no. 3639, pp. 1408-1413.

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

Holliday, V. T., C. V. Haynes, J. L. Hofman and D. J. Meltzer,
1994, Geoarchaeology and Geochronology of the Miami (Clovis)
Site, Southern High Plains of Texas. Quaternary Research. vol. 41,
no. 4, pp. 234-244.

Hibben (1943) is:

Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.

More recently, Clovis points dating to about 13,000 BP have been
found in Maryland as discussed in "UD grad student's discovery
could help rewrite prehistory, Univ. of Delaware Daily at;

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/aug/lowery080807.html

Even these Clovis Points are 35,000 years too young to support
Mr. Grondine's claims of PaleoIndian points being as old as "45,000
BCE".

Mr. Grondine continued,

"Given this level of discussion, one has to wonder
why I carry on - oh yes, its because there was an
impact that killed large numbers of people, and
that and only that makes it worth the time and
aggravation."

I sorry, but given the completely imaginary nature of your impact
and the fictional nature of the "large numbers of people" killed
by your imaginary impact, you are wasting a large amount of time
and aggravation for nothing. The few geologists, whom have seen
your book consider it a boring piece of fiction, which I call
"geopoetry", much like disaster movies such as "Volcano", "10.5",
"The Core", "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York", and "Crack
in the World".

I am wasting my time and effort on this discussion because, a
considerable number of catastrophists deliberately mislead their
readers by falsely citing and portraying Hibben (1943) as a
reliable and credible source of information about the so-called
Alaskan "muck" deposits. The bankruptcy of these catastrophists
illustrated by the fact they have to completely ignore over 60
years of research by world-class scientists and ignore the complete
lack of expertise by Hibben (1943) and his numerous credibility
problems to argue for there being tsunami deposits of any types in
his so-called Alaskan "mucks". The catastrophists, who accept
Hibben (1943) as an authoritative source and rejecting everything
else written in the 60 year since it was published are practicing
what I call "Cafeteria Catastrophism", in which data, papers,
interpretations, and arguments are accepted and rejected like a
person selects food at a cafeteria based on either how tasteful or
distasteful the food is.

Mr. Grondine continued,

"Now it's all very easy to say some 60 years
later to say that "this was the deposit that
Hibbens saw" or that "this was the place he was",
and then make claims about his work. The specific
deposits which Hibbens examined were destroyed
in the same hydraulic mining operation that
exposed them."

The claim is completely false. Any comparison, as I did in my
previous post of the descriptions given by Hibben (1943) of his
"muck" deposits and the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene
deposits of show that Hibben's so-called "muck" deposits are
exactly the same deposits, which have been studied by the later
researchers in the past sixty years. Although the specific outcrops
are gone, the same deposits can be seen in newer outcrops and
those described in the papers described at the end of this post.
The people reading this list can judge for themselves by
comparing the descriptions given in any of the papers listed at
the end of this post. In addition, the cataclysmic mega-tsunami
hypothesized by Mr. Grondine would have blanketed thousands of
square miles with a very distinctive sedimentary layers that would
be physically impossible for any mining operations and other
human activities to have completely removed.

This topic was discussed in mind-numbing detail in:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html

In addition, the imaginary nature of his "muck" deposits. mammoth
bones and archaeological site, which Hibben (1943) reported from
Chinitna Bay is well documented by:

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.

and

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 continued,

But what I find hard to accept is why Hibbens
would lie, when those who were there with him
were still alive. And why would he lie about
what he saw?"

If Mr. Grondine would take the time to read through my last post,
he would find that I answered this questions at least twice. First,
having spent all of his time working in the dry, hot climates of the
America Southwest, Dr. Hibben was simply functionally illiterate
in his understanding of cold-climate Arctic periglacial processes
that created his so-called "muck" deposits. As a result, he
completely misunderstood and misinterpreted what he saw.

Second, if Mr. Grondine would read, Preston (1995), he would
find that I am not the person, who is arguing that Hibben lied.
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. He
can find the answer to his question in Preston (1995).

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 highly regarded by
conventional archaeologists as Mr. Grondine falsely 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)

People can find more detail at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html

Mr. Grondine asked:

"Two other points:

1)None of the known major mega-tsunamis caused by
volcanic island landslides seem to have shown up in
any of these studies Paul cites, and"

Because Fairbanks, Alaska lies approximately 350-370 miles from
Beaufort Sea/Arctic Ocean; approximately 390 miles from Norton
Sound; approximately 420 miles from Kotzebue Sound and
approximately 340-360 miles from the Gulf of Alaska. That is too
far inland for the magnitude of mega-tsunamis caused by volcanic
island landslides to have traveled inland. In addition, on three
sides of Fairbanks, Alaska, there are mountain ranges, which
being thousands of feet high, would effectively block the magnitude
of mega-tsunamis caused by volcanic island landslides from reaching
Fairbanks. The mega-tsunamis caused by volcanic island landslides,
as large as they are, simply are too small to flow over mountains,
which are thousands of feet high and travel hundreds of miles
inland. As a result, there is no geologic record of them having
reached Fairbanks.

In sharp contrast, numerous, well-documented examples of multiple
sedimentary layers created by mega-tsunamis / tsunamis, depending
on how a person defines them, have been described in the scientific
literature from sediments of salt marshes, coastal lagoons, and
coastal lakes, which occur along the Pacific coast of North America.
These sedimentary layers, called “event beds”, are excellent
examples of the quite distinctive nature of mega-tsunamis /
tsunamis deposits, which any geologist would be able to readily
recognize in the Fairbanks area had Mr. Grondine's imaginary
mega-tsunamis actually occurred. These studies demonstrate that
the sedimentary layers created by a mega-tsunamis are completely
different in their grain-size, sedimentary structure, bedding,
and other characteristics from the layers within the Alaskan
“muck”, which Hibben (2943) completely misidentified as having been
created by some ancient catastrophe. A "few" of the many scientific
publications, which described the physical character of the event
beds created by mega-tsunamis / tsunamis and found along the Pacific
coast are:

Atwater, B. F., A. R. Nelson, J. J. Clague, G. A. Carver, D. K.
Yamaguchi, P. T. Bobrowski, J. Bourgeois, M. E. Darienzo, W. C.
Grant, E. Hemphill-Haley, H. M. Kelsey, G. C. Jacoby, S. P.
Nishenko, S. P. Palmer, C. D. Peterson, and M. A. Reinhart, 1995,
Summary of coastal geologic evidence for past great earthquakes at
the Cascadia subduction zone. Earthquake Spectra, vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 1-18.

Bobrowski, P.T. and J. J. Clague, 1995, Tsunami deposits beneath
tidal marshes on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. in
Tsunami deposits: Geologic warnings of future inundation,
University of Washington, May 22-23, p.12.

Bourgeois, J., and S. Y. Johnson, 2001, Geologic evidence of
earthquakes at the Snohomish delta, Washington, in the past
1200 yr. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 113,
no. 4, pp. 482-494.

Bourgeois, J., T. K. Pinegina V. Ponomareva, and N. Zaretskaia,
2006, Holocene tsunamis in the southwestern Bering Sea, Russian
Far East, and their tectonic implications. Geological Society of
America Bulletin. vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 449-463.

Clague, J. J., P. T. Bobrowski, T. S. and Hamilton,1994, A sand
sheet deposited by tsunami at Port Alberni, British Columbia.
Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science. vol. 38, pp. 413-421.

Clague, J. J., P. T. Bobrowski, and I. Hutchinson, 2000, A review
of Geological records of large tsunamis at Vancouver Island,
British Columbia, and implications for hazard: Quaternary Science
Reviews. vol.19, pp. 849-863.

Clague, J. J., I. Hutchinson, R. W. Mathews, and R. T. Patterson,
1999, Evidence for late Holocene tsunamis at Catala Lake, British
Columbia. Journal of Coastal Research. vol. 15, no. 1, pp.45-60.

Clague, J. J. and P. T. Bobrowski, 1994, Tsunami deposits beneath
tidal marshes on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 106, pp.1293-1303.

Clague, J. J. and P. T. Bobrowski, 1994b, Evidence for a large
earthquake and tsunami 100-400 years ago on western Vancouver
Island, British Columbia: Quaternary Research, vol. 41, pp. 176-184.

Kelsey, H. M., R. C. Witter, and M. Polenz, 1993, Cascadia
paleoseismic record derived from late Holocene fluvial and lake
sediments, Sixes River valley, Cape Blanco, south coastal Oregon.
EOS (Transactions, American Geophysical Union) vol. 74, p. 199.

Kelsey, H. M., A. R. Nelson, and E. Hemphill-Haley, 1995,
Properties and depositional characteristics of tsunamis in south
coastal Oregon from a paired coastal-lake and marsh study: in
Tsunami Deposits: Geologic Warnings of Future inundation,
University of Washington.

Kelsey, H. M., R. C. Witter, and E. Hemphill-Haley 2002, Plate-
boundary earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 5500 yr, Sixes
River estuary, southern Oregon. Geological Society of America
Bulletin. vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 298-314.

Kelsey, H. M., A. R. Nelson, E. Hemphill-Haley, E., and R. C.
Witter, 2005, Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a
4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction
zone. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 117, no. 7/8,
pp. 1009-1032.

Kuhn, G. G., 2005, Paleoseismic features as indicators of
earthquake hazards in North Coastal, San Diego County,
California, USA. Engineering Geology. vol. 80, pp. 115-150

Lopez, G.I. and P. T. Bobrowski, 2001, A 14,000 year old record
from a coastal freshwater lake: Sedimentological evidence for
tsunamigenic events on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British
Columbia, Canada: Proceedings of the International Tsunami
Symposium 2001, Seattle, Washington, August 7-10, 2001,
pp. 493-502.

Nelson, A. R., A. C. Asquith, and W. C. Grant, 2004, Great
Earthquakes and Tsunamis of the Past 2000 Years at the Salmon
River Estuary, Central Oregon Coast, USA. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America. vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 1276-1292.

Ollerhead, J., D. J. Huntley, A. R. Nelson, and H. M. Kelsey, 2001,
Optical dating of tsunami-laid sand from an Oregon coastal lake
Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 20, pp. 1915-1926.

Peters, R., B. Jaffe, G. Gelfenbaum, and C. Peterson, 2003, Cascadia
Tsunami Deposit Database 2003. United States Geological Survey
Open-File Report 03-13.

Peters, R., B. Jaffe, and G. Gelfenbaum, 2007, Distribution and
sedimentary characteristics of tsunami deposits along the Cascadia
margin of western North America. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 200,
pp. 372-386

Peterson, C. S., and D. Qualman, 1999, Establishing long inundation
distances of prehistoric tsunami from siliciclastic and bio-
geochemical tracers in open-coast, beach plain wetlands, central
Cascadia margin, USA: EOS (Transactions, American Geophysical
Union) vol. 80, no. 46. pp. 520-521.

Sherrod, B. L., 2001, Evidence for earthquake-induced subsidence
about 1100 yr ago in coastal marshes of southern Puget Sound,
Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 113,
no. 10, p. 1299-1311.

Williams, H. and I. Hutchinson, 2000, Stratigraphic and microfossil
evidence for late Holocene Tsunamis at Swantown Marsh, Whidbey
Island, Washington. Quaternary Research, vol. 54, pp. 218-227.

Anyone looking at the above publications, would find:

1. mega-tsunamis / tsunamis of any size leave behind deposits that
are quite distinctive and readily recognizable by any educated
geologist. A person does **not** have to be an expert in either
tsunamis or mega-tsunamis to be able to recognize them with the
unaided eye.

2. Conventional geologists have known about the distinctive nature of
mega-tsunamis / tsunamis for the past 10-12 years.

3. If mega-tsunamis / tsunamis deposits exist within the Neogene,
Pleistocene, and Holocene sediments, which Hibben (1943)
collectively calls "muck", they would be readily recognizable and
quite obvious to any conventional geologist.

4. The deposits of mega-tsunamis / tsunamis are completely different
in their physical characteristics from the layers within the Alaskan
“muck, which Hibben (1943) incorrectly interpreted as having been
created by some sort of catastrophic event.

Another problem, which Mr. Grondine completely ignores is that
paleoenvironmental records extending back into the last, Wisconsin,
glacial maximum have been recovered from cores taken from dozens
of lakes and bogs within Alaska. Some of these cores often provide
a detailed record of paleovegetation, paleoenvironment, and
sedimentation in these lakes and bogs over the past 14,000 years.
In none of these cores is there any evidence of either an event bed,
which can interpreted as having been deposited by either a mega-
tsunamis / tsunamis or the cataclysmic environmental damage that
the mega-tsunamis, which Mr. Grondine argues happened, would have
created.

Looking at the data from these studies, I have to call Mr.
Grondine’s mega-tsunamis hypothesis, the “Magic Mega-tsunamis
Theory”. Mr. Grondine’s mega-tsunamis has to be “magical” in manner
in which it is large enough to obliterate entire cultures and
overtop mountains, which are thousands of feet high, yet not leave
behind any event beds, as left behind by much smaller earthquake
generated mega-tsunamis / tsunamis along the Pacific Coast of North
America, in the numerous core, which have been studies for
reconstructing Alaskan paleoenvironment. Mr. Grondine’s mega-
tsunamis also have to be “magical” in the manner in which they
allegedly powerful enough to have obliterated North America
megafauna yet left Alaskan vegetation completely untouched as
demonstrated by the pollen and other data from the same cores. In
case of these cores, absence of evidence for an cataclysmic event
as large as Mr. Grondine’s mega-tsunamis is clear proof of absence.

Some of these paleoenvironmental records are discussed in:

Alfimov, A. V., and D. I. Berman, 2001, Beringian climate during
the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews.
vol. 20, no. 1-3, pp. 127-134.

Ager, T. A., 1975, Late Quaternary environmental history of the
Tanana Valley, Alaska. Institute of Polar Studies Report no. 54.
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Ager, T. A. 1980. A 16,000 year pollen record from St. Michael
Island, Norton Sound, western Alaska. In American Quaternary
Association, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Abstracts and Program,
18-20 August 1980, P3, Institute for Quaternary Studies,
University of Maine, Orono.

Ager, T. A. 1982. Vegetational history of western Alaska during
the Wisconsin glacial interval and the Holocene. Pp. 75-93 in
Hopkins, D. M., J. V. Matthews, Jr., C. E. Schweger, and S. B.
Young, eds., , Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press,
New York.

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.

Ager, T. A., 1989, History of late Pleistocene and Holocene
vegetation in the Copper River basin, south-central Alaska. in Pp.
89-92, L. D. Carter, T. D. Hamilton, and J. P. Galloway, eds.,
Late Cenozoic History of the Interior Basins of Alaska and the
Yukon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular no. 1026.

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/cir/cir1026

Ager, T. A., 2000. Postglacial vegetation history of the Kachemak
Bay area, Cook Inlet, south-central Alaska. Pp. 147-165, in K.
Kelley, and L. Gough, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper no. 1615. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1615/

Ager, T. A., 2003, Late Quaternary vegetation and climate history
of the central Bering land bridge from St. Michael Island, western
Alaska, Quaternary Research. v. 60, no. 1, pp. 19-32.

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/Ager2003QR.pdf

Anderson, P. M., 1982, Reconstructing the Past: The synthesis
of Archaeological and Palynological data, Northern Alaska and
Northwestern Canada. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Brown
University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Anderson, P. M., 1985, Late Quaternary vegetational change in
the Kotzebue Sound area, northwestern Alaska. Quaternary Research.
vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 307-321.

Anderson, P. M., 1988, Late quaternary pollen records from the
Kobuk and Noatak river drainages, northwestern Alaska. Quaternary
Research. vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 263-276.

Anderson, P. M., and L. B. Brubaker, 1988, Vegetation history of
northcentral Alaska: A mapped summary of the late-Quaternary pollen
data. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 71–92.

Anderson, P. M., and L.B. Brubaker, 1993, Holocene vegetation and
climate histories of Alaska. Pp. 386-400 in H. E. Wright, Jr.,
J. E. Kutzbach, T. Webb, III, W. F. Ruddiman, F. A. Street-Parrott,
and P. J. Bartlein, eds. Global Climates since the Last Glacial
Maximum, Chapter 15. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

Anderson, P. M., and L. B. Brubaker, 1994, Vegetation history of
northcentral Alaska: a mapped summary of late Quaternary pollen
data. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 71-92.

Anderson, P. M., P. J. Bartlein and L. B. Brubaker, 1994, Late
Quaternary History of Tundra Vegetation in Northwestern Alaska
Quaternary Research. vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 306-315.

Anderson, P. M., R. E. Reanier, and L. B. Brubaker, 1990. A
14,000-year pollen record from Sithylemenkat lake, north-central
Alaska. Quaternary Research. vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 400-404.’

Anatoly V. L., P. M. Anderson, W. R. Eisner, L. G. Ravako, D. M.
Hopkins, L. B. Brubaker, P. A. Colinvaux and M, C. Miller, 1993,
Late Quaternary Lacustrine Pollen Records from Southwestern
Beringia. Quaternary Research. vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 314-324.

Axford, Y., and D. S. Kaufman, 2004, Late Glacial and Holocene
Glacier and Vegetation Fluctuations at Little Swift Lake,
Southwestern Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, vol. 36, no. 2,
pp. 139-146

http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~axford/axford_et_al_2004.pdf

Bigelow, N. H., and M. E. Edwards. 2001, A 14,000 yr
paleoenvironmental record from Windmill Lake, Central Alaska:
evidence for high-frequency climatic and vegetation fluctuations.
Quaternary Science Reviews 20, no. 1-2, pp. 203-215.

Brubaker, L. B., H. L. Garfinkel, and M. E. Edwards, 1983, A
late-Wisconsin and Holocene vegetation history from the central
Brooks Range: implications for Alaskan paleoecology. Quaternary
Research. vol. 20, no. XX, pp. 194-214.

Brubaker, L. B., P. M. Anderson and F. S. Hu, 2001, Vegetation
ecotone dynamics in Southwest Alaska during the Late Quaternary
Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 20, no. 1-3, pp. 175-188.

Carlson, L. J., and B. P. Finney, 2004, A 13,000-year history of
vegetation and environmental change at Jan Lake, east-central
Alaska. The Holocene, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 818-827

Cwynar, L. C., 1982, A Late-Quaternary Vegetation History from
Hanging Lake, Northern Yukon. Ecological Monographs, vol. 52,
no. 1, pp. 1-24.

Edwards, M. E., and Edward D. Barker, 1994, Climate and vegetation
in northeastern Alaska 18,000 yr B.P.-present. Palaeogeography
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 109, no. 2-4, pp. 127-135

Hansen, B. C. S. and D. R. Engstrom, 1996, Vegetation History
of Pleasant Island, Southeastern Alaska, since 13,000 yr B.P.
Quaternary Research. vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 161-175.

Heusser, C. J., 1952, Pollen profiles from southeast Alaska.
Ecological Monographs. vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 331-352.

Heusser, C. J., 1955, Pollen profiles from Prince William Sound and
Southeast Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Ecology 36, no.2, pp. 185-202.

Heusser, C. J., 1983a, Pollen diagrams from the Shumagin islands and
adjacent Alaskan peninsula, southwestern Alaska. Boreas. vol. 12,
pp. 279-295.

Heusser, C. J. 1983b. Vegetational history of the northwestern
United States including Alaska. in pp. 239-258, S. C. Porter, ed.
Late Quaternary. Environments of the United States, vol. 1: The
Late-Pleistocene, University Minnesota Press.

Livingstone, D. A., 1955, Some pollen profiles from arctic Alaska.
Ecology. vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 587-600.

Matthews, J. V., Jr., 1974a, Quaternary environments at Cape Deceit
(Seward Peninsula, Alaska):Evolution of a tundra ecosystem.
Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 85, no. 9, pp.
1353-1384.

Matthews, J. V., Jr., 1974b. Wisconsin environment of interior
Alaska: pollen and macrofossil analysis of a 27 meter core from
the Isabella Basin (Fairbanks, Alaska). Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences. vol. 11, pp. 828-841.

Oswald, L. B., L. B. Brubaker, F.S. Hu, and G.W. Kling, nd, Late
Quaternary Environmental History of the Toolik Lake Area

http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/staffweb/jhobbie/chapter3_watershed%20history.doc.

Pisaric, M. F. J., G. M. MacDonald, A. A. Velichko and L. C.
Cwynar, 2001, The Lateglacial and Postglacial vegetation history of
the northwestern limits of Beringia, based on pollen, stomate and
tree stump evidence. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 20, no. 1-3,
pp. 235-245.

Shackleton, J., 1982, Environmental histories from Whitefish and
Imuruk lakes, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Institute of Polar
Studies Report no. 76, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

The above peer-reviewed, scientific publications are a sample of
an enormous amount of published research, which together completely
refutes and demolishes Mr. Grondine’s mega-tsunamis hypothesis for
the creation of any part of Hibben’s Alaskan “muck”. Other
catastrophists, who use the Alaskan “muck” as evidence of a
terminal Pleistocene mega-tsunamis, fail to mention any of this
literature because they are either utterly ignorant of its
existence or, as a form of what alternative scientists call
“knowledge filtering/ filtration”, simply do not want their
readers to know that there exists an abundant amount of evidence,
which contradicts and, often demolishes, their hypotheses.

Even more such paleoenvironmental records can found at:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp011/alaska/alaska.ref

Detailed descriptions of the distinctive sedimentary layers, which
an actual mega-tsunamis would have left behind in any lake or bog
deposits can be found in:

Bondevik S, 2003, Storegga tsunami sand in peat below the Tapes
beach ridge at Haroy, western Norway, and its possible relation
to an early Stone Age settlement. Boreas. vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 476–483.

Bondevik S, J. I. Svendsen, J. and Mangerud J. 1997. Tsunami
sedimentary facies deposited by the Storegga tsunami in shallow
marine basins and coastal lakes, western Norway. Sedimentology.
vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1115–1131.

Bondevik, S., J. I., Svendsen, G. Johnsen, J. Mangerud, and P. E.
Kaland, 1997, The Storegga tsunami along. the Norwegian coast,
its age and runup. Boreas vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 29-53.

Bondevik S, Mangerud J, Dawson S, Dawson A, Lohne O. 2003. Record
breaking height for 8000-year-old tsunami in the North Atlantic.
Eos. vol. 84, no. 31, pp. 289–291.

Mr. Grondine also asked:

"2) While Paul has commented on the lack of
mega-fauna remains in the new studies, he has
not comment on the what was it, 30 or 90 feet?
of marine sediment overlying that the
spearpoint Hibbens retrieved from that cat's
ribcage."

First, I did not comment on the lack of megafauna in Hibben’s
“muck” as Mr. Grondine falsely claims. According to the "new
studies", some of which are listed at the end of this post, they
clearly mention the presence of abundant megafauna remains within
the Neogene, Quaternary, and Holocene deposits, which Hibben (1943)
collectively refers to as "muck". In the pre-Sangamon, pre-Eva
Forest beds deposits, these remains consist only of bones. The
mummified mammal remains are found only in the “muck” deposits,
which overlie the Eva Forest bed and also locally contain abundant
bones. The Holocene deposits lack any extinct megafauna, although
they contain other fossil bones and the occasional mummified
caribou and scattered mummified squirrels.

Second, it sounds like Mr. Grondine is living in a different planet
then me. :-) :-) I say this because the 30 to 90 feet of marine
sediments, on which he complains about me not commenting, within
the Fairbanks area, exists only within Mr. Grondine's very vivid and
fertile imagination. It is impossible for me to comment on
something, which does not exist in the real world. Hibben (1943) did
not report finding 30 to 90 feet of marine deposits in his so-called
"muck" deposits within the Fairbank, Alaska, area. In fact, he
described the Fairbanks “muck” as consisting predominately of loess
as when 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.”

Finally, in case of Chinitna Bay, Hibben (1943) reported finding
only some mammoth bones, which nobody else have been able to find
in that area despite having searched diligently for them. Hibben
(1943) mentions finding neither a "cat's ribcage" nor any artifacts
associated with the mammoth bones that he reported finding at
Chinitna Bay.

In [meteorite-list] holocene start impacts, Mr. Grondine wrote:

"Thanks for the note:

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109768&org=NSF&from=news

“Now why didn't this layer show up in those alaskan
muck studies which you cited to us?” For that matter,
why didn't the signs of the known landslide and
seismically caused mega-tsunamis show up in them? My
guess is that it was inadequate attention to detail;
as the saying goes..."

Presuming only for sake of argument that there is any Iridium,
of shocked quartz, Iridium, metallic microspherules, nano-diamonds,
buckyballs, Heluim3, and other impact indicators to be found in the
in the Alaskan “muck” in the first place, the reason they have not
been found so far is that, unlike the deposits of a mega-tsunamis /
tsunamis, they are completely invisible to the naked eye and require
either the analyses of the samples using microscopic, petrographic,
or geochemical techniques to detect them. It is simply impossible
for anyone to be able visually detect with the naked eye whether or
not shocked quartz, Iridium, metallic microspherules, nano-diamonds,
buckyballs, Heluim3, or any other indicator of an impact are present
in a sediment. I would challenge Mr. Grondine to explain how anyone
can determine the presence of shocked quartz, Iridium, metallic
microspherules, nano-diamonds, buckyballs, Heluim3, in a sample of
loess or any other sediment simply by looking at it with his or her
own unaided eyes. I would predict that neither Mr. Grondine can
explain how to do this because it is an impossible task for anyone
to do.

In complete contrast, a mega-tsunamis capable of washing hundreds
of miles inland and up and over thousand-foot high mountains to
reach the Fairbanks area would certainly have created a blatantly
obvious blanket of sediment over thousands of square miles that is
quite visible to the unaided eye. As documented in numerous papers
listed above, such a mega-tsunamis deposit will be quite different
from the layers created by periglacial processes, which Hibben
(1943) misinterpreted to be catastrophic origin. If a mega-tsunamis
/ tsunamis generated by subduction zone earthquakes leaves very
distinct and recognizable deposits, then a mega-tsunamis generated
by an event even more cataclysmic event would have left very
similar and quite distinctive deposits. Completely unlike shocked
quartz, Iridium, metallic microspherules, nano-diamonds, buckyballs,
and Heluim3, such deposits will be quite visible and easily
recognized as being anomalous to the unaided eye of any
conventional geologist within the loessial, fine-grained
Alaskan “muck” deposits.

Finally, as previously discuss, the mega-tsunamis generated by
seismic events and landslides are quite obviously and simply
not powerful enough to have washed 350 to 420 miles inland and
up and over entire mountain ranges to reach the area of Fairbanks,
Alaska.

List of papers discussing the age, origin, and character of the
"muck" deposits of Hibben (1943) and completely demolish
the interpretations made by Mr. Grondine and other catastrophists
are:

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. Journal
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 H.

NFS Funds Research Into Terminal Pleistocene Impact Hypothesis

NSF Funds Research Into Terminal Pleistocene Impact Hypothesis

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 16 15:27:26 EDT 2007

Dear Listmembers,

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded research
into terminal Pleistocene impact hypothesis.

Discovery Comet May Have Exploded Over North
America 13,000 Years Ago: Caused wooly mammoth
extinction, global cooling and end of early human
Clovis culture (Press Release)

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109768&org=NSF&from=news

Award Abstract #0713769 SGER: Investigations of a Likely
Extraterrestrial Impact at 12.9 ka: Possible Cause of Younger
Dryas Cooling, North American Mammal Mass Extinction and
Demise of Clovis People

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0713769

“This award, under the auspices of the Small Grants for
Exploratory Research (SGER) program, funds research to
test a new hypothesis that Younger Dryas climatic cooling
was triggered by a comet impact on or near the Laurentide
Ice Sheet. This impact may have caused destabilization,
melting, and massive flooding to the northern Atlantic
and Arctic oceans that in turn affected ocean circulation
and climate.

The research is founded on growing physical evidence for
an impact at 12,900 years ago based on analyses from a
discrete carbon-rich black colored sedimentary layer that
is widely distributed over North America. This sedimentary
layer contains iridium, cosmic spherules, carbon spherules,
and fullerenes enriched in extraterrestrial noble gas
concentrations.

Iridium, fullerenes, cosmic spherules and glass-like carbon
formed under high temperatures are being reported from
the sediment rims of depressed geomorphic features called
Carolina Bays. This evidence may help evaluate whether the
Bays originated in an impact.

The researchers will explore, chemically analyze, and date
the black layer at several geographic locations. In addition
to field exploration, the researchers will examine existing
marine cores from the Hudson Bay region since the region
is the primary location for the suspected impact event.

The research could have broad impact on the wider science
community and catalyze new thinking in issues surrounding
climate, mass extinctions, landscape development, and
human and cultural evolution in the Americas by offering
a new perspective on old and knotty scientific problems.”

I have yet to see any peer-reviewed paper published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science as
promised by West and Firestone.

Yours,

Paul H.

Texas Ebay Meteorwrongs

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 9 14:33:28 EDT 2007

Dear Friends,

Judging from the latest eBay listings, a complete "strewnfield" of
meteorwrongs has been found in Texas. :-) :-) :-) They can be
seen at:

A picture of the “crater”, with which they are associated can be seen at:

http://i24.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ag/f4/bc6a_12.JPG

The specific web pages are:

1. Ear-shaped Stony Meteorite found near W. Texas Crater, Item number: 170137028903
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ear-shaped-Stony-Meteorite-found-near-W-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137028903QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i15.ebayimg.com/01/i/000/ag/cf/1970_1.JPG

2. Stony Meteorite found near West Texas Crater, Item number: 170137060741
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stony-Meteorite-found-near-West-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137060741QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i13.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ag/d3/f626_1.JPG

3. Stony "Footprint" Meteorite found near W.Texas Crater, Item number: 170137061533
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stony-Footprint-Meteorite-found-near-W-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137061533QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i8.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/ag/d4/150a_1.JPG

4. Stony Meteorite found near West Texas Crater, Item number: 170137062979
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stony-Meteorite-found-near-West-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137062979QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ag/d4/3899_1.JPG

5. Stony Meteorite found near West Texas Crater, Item number: 170137063877
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stony-Meteorite-found-near-West-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137063877QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i5.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ag/d4/74d7_1.JPG

6. Stony Meteorite found near West Texas Crater, Item number: 170137064388
http://cgi.ebay.com/Stony-Meteorite-found-near-West-Texas-Crater_W0QQitemZ170137064388QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i5.ebayimg.com/05/i/000/ag/d4/8570_1.JPG

http://contact.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ShowAllQuestions&ShowAllQuestions=&requested=buffalogrc&iid=170137064388&redirect=0&ShowASQAlways=1&SSPageName=PageAskSellerQuestion_VI&frm=284&guest=1

Best Regards,

Paul

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