Including Original "Paul H. Letters" Copyright © 1996-2025 Paul V. Heinrich / website © 1996-2025 Dirk Ross - All rights reserved.



Showing posts with label Kofels Landslide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kofels Landslide. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 April 2010

On Now! - Sodom & Gomorrah on Science Channel Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:31 PM

On Now! - Sodom & Gomorrah on Science Channel Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:31 PM

In http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2010-March/062654.html

Darren Garrison quoted GeoZay as stating:

“I just watched this program. It's left me wondering where are all
those meteorites from billions of tons of debris that supposedly fell
on Sodom and Gomorrah? If that one nearby town was found, then
surely nearby there should be a fanny load of meteorites laying
about just waiting to be scooped up.

David responded:

“I haven't seen the show sounds like National Enquirer quality
stuff though) but not only does nobody know where Sodom and
Gomorrah were, nobody knows for sure if they even actually
existed, or if they did exist-- when. Here's an article from mid-2009
which (along with the comments at the end) show how little
agreement there is on the subject:

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/sodom-and-gomorrah.asp


Will their next episode be postulating bio-luminescent bacteria as the
explanation of why Rudolph's nose glows so bright?”

The episode of “Biblical Mysteries Explained” about Sodom and
Gomorrah is largely based upon a popular, self-published book
that recycles long discredited claims about the large Kofels
Landslide near Tyrol, Austria, being of impact origin. The book is:

Bond, A., and M. Hempsell, 2008, A Sumerian Observation of the
Köfels' Impact Event, Writersprintshop, 2008, ISBN: 1904623646

They argue that the impact of an asteroid over a kilometer in
diameter created the Kofels landslide about 5123 BP near Tyrol,
Austria. They argue that the “back plume from the explosion”
was hurled back along its entry path / “bent over the
Mediterranean Sea” and re-entered the atmosphere some
1,600 miles away over the Levant, Sinai, and Northern
Egypt and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

There all sorts of problems with their thesis.

1. First, the age of the Kofels landslide is well established by
numerous concordant radiocarbon and cosmogenic dates.
as having occurred about 9800±100 years BP. This is some
4,600 – 4,700 older than claimed by Bond and Hemphill in
their book. The radiocarbon dates came from AMS 14C
dating of wood buried by the landslide. The age of the Kofels
landslide is discussed in:

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

and

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

All Bond and Hemphill can do is make unsupported claims
that the radiocarbon are “contaminated” by some unknown
process. Also, a person cannot even claim that seemingly
imaginary impact-related “nuclear processes” can create
apparent dates that are older than the actual age of the
material.

2. Another problem is that the impact origin of the Kofels
landslide has been previously discredited in discussions of
its origin as the result of a terminal Pleistocene impact as
advocated by Austrian geologist Alexander Tollmann as
discussed in:

Kristan-Tollmann, E. and A. Tollmann, 1994, The youngest
big impact on Earth deduced from geological and historical
evidence. Terra Nova. v. 6, no. 2, pp. 209-217.

and

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

Also, look at “Tollmann's hypothetical bolide” at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollmann%27s_hypothetical_bolide


It appears that the starting point for the hypothesis that the
Kofels Landslide was caused by a extraterrestrial impact was the
discovery of natural glass within the deposits of the Kofels
Landslide. After the discovery of natural glass, the extraterrestrial
impact hypothesis was proposed because, at that time, natural
glass was only known to be created by either volcanic or
extraterrestrial impact processes. Given the absence of associated
volcanic deposits, it was argued the natural glass must have been
created by an extraterrestrial impact. However, is it now known
that similar natural glasses called "frictionite", are associated
with other mega landslides and laboratory experiments and
computer simulations show that frictional heating during
landslides are quite capable of producing the natural glass
found associated with the Kofels Landslide. This is discussed
in detail in:

Erismann, T. H., and G. Abele, 2001, Dynamics of Rockslides
and Rockfalls, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 316 p.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~jsedr/BookReviews/March2002/Dynamics.pdf


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

and

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

Cause effect models of large mass movements
http://info.tuwien.ac.at/geophysik/research/landslides/1997_pr01/structure/koefels.htm


In addition, it is now known that Kofels Landslide is one of
several catastrophic landslides that resulted from the collapse
of valley walls over-steepened by glacial erosion at the end of
the Pleistocene. The valley walls collapsed when the retreat of
glaciers removed ice that was supporting the steep valley
walls created by glacial erosion.

The lack of any identifiable impact debris, shocked quartz,
and crater from the impact of an asteroid over a kilometer
in diameter presents major problems in arguing that the
Kofels Landslide is impact related. Shocked quartz was once
reported from the Kofels Landslide. However, when
reexamined, the shocked quartz proved to be tectonically
deformed quartz that grossly misidentified as “shocked
quartz” as discussed by:

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

3. yet another problem is the lack of any credible explanation
about why the fireball from the impacting asteroid would
bend over / be hurled back along its entry path by some 1,600
miles to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Simply plugging some
the numbers that Bond and Hemphill provide for their alleged
extraterrestrial impact into the “Earth Impact Effects Program”
by Robert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins readily
shows that their impact would have no significant effect in
the area where Sodom and Gomorrah allegedly existed.

“Earth Impact Effects Program”
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/


For example, using Bond’s and Hemphill’s estimates for the
size and mass of their hypothetical asteroid, I found:

1. a hypothetical "Köfels impact event" was too small
to either create a fireball, for a stony asteroid (3000kg/m3),
or the Middle East lay below the Earth's horizon for the
fireball created by an iron asteroid (8000 kg/m3).

2. a hypothetical asteroid was too small to either dump any
ejecta, for a stony asteroid (3000kg/m3) in the Middle East,
or, in case of an iron asteroid (8000 kg/m3) the ejecta blanket
was far too thin to have done any damage.

3. the "plume" / fireball created by such an impact would
have radiated thermal radiation for only a few seconds to
few minutes. Therefore, the "plume" could not have ignited
anything as it drifted over the Middle East.

4. the total kinetic energy that would have been released
by the impact of the alleged asteroid would have obliterated
Mt. Gamskogel if any significant piece of the, by then broken
up, asteroid clipped into this mountain.

There are all sorts of other problems with this thesis, including
their translation of Sumerian, whether Sodom and Gomorrah
really existed, and if they existed, where they were actually
located. Thus, my opinion of the Sodom and Gomorrah episode
of “Biblical Mysteries Explained” is that it is just one of a number
of dull to mildly entertaining fantasy and science fiction
programs that can appear on the Science Channel.

Yours,

Paul H.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dare to Add venture Fur Ther???

Dare to Add venture Fur Ther???
Leica Follow the · · · — — — · · ·
PhotoByAten

Monday, 31 March 2008

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?, Part 2

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?, Part 2

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 31 21:26:24 EDT 2008

meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

Sterling K. Webb wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

-- Alledged PDFs --

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

The above web page, states

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

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

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

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

How these llamellar features would have formed is discussed by:

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

-- Additional Note --

Sorenson et al. (2003) concluded:

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

Reference Cited

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

Yours,

Paul H.

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? part 1

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? part 1

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 31 17:08:00 EDT 2008

In “Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?”, it
was stated by McCartney Taylor:

“I don't agree with most of these conclusions. I motion to have this
work peer reviewed by meteoriticists. Do I hear a second?”

At http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php
and paraphrased in thttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/31/kofels_asteroid/
it was stated:

“The giant landslide centred at Köfels in Austria
is 500m thick and five kilometres in diameter
and has long been a mystery since geologists
first looked at it in the 19th century. The
conclusion drawn by research in the middle
20th century was that it must be due to a
very large meteor impact because of the
evidence of crushing pressures and explosions.”

The impact theory for the formation of the Köfels landslide has
been discredited by various published papers. They include:

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

Bruckl, E. P., 2004, Cause-Effect Models of Large Landslides.
Natural Hazards. vol. 23, no. 2-3, pp. 291-314.

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

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

and

Kubik, P.W., S. Ivy-Ochs, J. Masarik, M.. R. Frank, and C.
Schlüchter, 1998, 10Be and 26Al production rates deduced from
an instantaneous event within the dendro-calibration curve: the
landslide at Köfels, Oetz Valley, Austria. Earth and Planetary
Sciences Letters. vol.161, pp. 231-241.

Yours,

Paul H.