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



Monday, 20 August 2007

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

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.

Thursday, 16 August 2007

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.

Thursday, 9 August 2007

Texas Ebay Meteorwrongs

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


Tuesday, 7 August 2007

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine wrote:

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

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

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

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

Reference Cited:

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine wrote:

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

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

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

The article concludes:

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

Mr. Grondine continued:

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

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

It is curious how catastrophists selectively quote only those
parts of Hibben’s published papers, which support the specific
catastrophe of their choice being argued for. For example, they
never quote Hibben (1943), where he stated:

“The deposits known as muck may be definitely
described, in the opinion of the writer, as loess
material. All characteristics seem to indicate a
wind-borne origin from comparatively local
sources, as the material resembles local bedrock.
The outwash plains of the local glaciations are
likely points of origin for this material. These
mucks deposits are from four to one hundred feet
thick and are especially well known in the vicinity
of Fairbanks, Circle , and other gold mining
centers of the Upper Yukon and the Tanana
where the muck overlies auriferous gravels. Muck
deposits of considerable thickness, however, are
found in the lower reaches of the Yukon, on the
Koyukuk River, on the Kuskokwim and on several
places along the Arctic coast, and
"

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

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

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

In addition Hibben (1943) stated:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine continued:

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

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

References Cited:

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

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

Mr. Grondine continued:

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

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

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

Mr. Grondine continued:

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine also wrote:

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

After I stated

“That you have to dismiss 60 years of ?post war
research?, which I discussed in my post, out-of-hand
as ?BS? just shows to me how completely lacking in
either any evidence or arguments, outside of Hibben?s
antiquated and discredited research, which you have
to support your ideas about there being any tsunami
deposits in the so-called ?Alaskan muck?.”

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

References Cited;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine wrote:

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

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

Mr. Grondine wrote:

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

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

Mr. Grondine also wrote:

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

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

In another post, Mr., Grondine wrote:

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

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

This statement is false to the point of being pure nonsense. As
previously noted, Hibben (1943) stated:

“The deposits known as muck may be definitely
described, in the opinion of the writer, as loess
material. All characteristics seem to indicate a
wind-borne origin from comparatively local
sources, as the material resembles local bedrock.
The outwash plains of the local glaciations are
likely points of origin for this material. These
mucks deposits are from four to one hundred
feet thick and are especially well known in the
vicinity of Fairbanks, Circle , and other gold
mining centers of the Upper Yukon and the
Tanana where the muck overlies auriferous
gravels. Muck deposits of considerable
thickness, however, are found in the lower
reaches of the Yukon, on the Koyukuk River,
on the Kuskokwim and on several places along
the Arctic coast, and so may be considered to
extend in greater and or lesser thickness over all
the unglaciated of the northern peninsula.
"

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

In the same paragraph, Hibben (1943) states:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grondine continued:

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

Mr. Grondine wrote:

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

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

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

References Cited:

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

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

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

Mr, Grondine wrote:

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

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

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

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

A significant paper is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2004, The regional and temporal
significance of primary aeolian magnetic fabrics preserved in
Alaskan loess. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. vol. 225,
pp. 379– 395

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2006, Discussion of "Geochemical
evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska"
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1887-1890.

Muhs, D. R. and Budahn, J. R., 2007, Geochemical evidence for
the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska. vol. 43,
no. 3, pp. 323-337.

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

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A., III, McGeehin, J., Been,
J. M., Begét, J. E., Pavich, M. J., Stafford, T. W., Jr., and
Stevens, D. S. P., 2003, Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance
of late Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last
interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska: Quaternary Science
Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours,

Paul

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Reports on Lake Bosumtwi and El'gygytgyn impact craters

Reports on Lake Bosumtwi and El'gygytgyn impact craters

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 24 09:02:28 EDT 2007

Dear Friends,

The latest issue, June 2007, of the DOSECC (Drilling,
Observation and Sampling of the Earths Continental Crust)
Newsletter has illustrated articles about recent research,
involving drillholes, at the Bosumtwi impact crater, Ghana,
and the Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Russia. The title of the
article are 1. “Results of the 2004 ICDP Bosumtwi impact
crater, Ghana, drilling project First studies of the deep
impactite cores”, and 2. “Deep Drilling at Lake
El'gygytgyn, NE Russia in the International Polar Year”.

The newsletters can be downloaded from either

http://www.dosecc.org/html/newsletters.html

or http://www.dosecc.org/05-07_FINAL.pdf

A bunch of PDF files of papers concerning the Bosumtwi
impact crater can be found at the bottom of:

http://www.univie.ac.at/geochemistry/koeberl/publication_list/

A related article is:

Koeberl, C., J. Peck, J. King, B. Milkereit, J. Overpeck,
and C. Scholz, 2005, The ICDP Lake Bosumtwi Drilling
Project: A First Report. Scientific Drilling. no. 1,
pp. 23-27.

It can be downloaded from:

http://www.iodp.org/iodp_journals/4_The_ICDP_Lake_Bosumtwi_SD1.pdf

and

http://www.iodp.org/SD1-2005-TOC/

Amother article is:

Gurov, E. P., C. Koeberl, and A, Yamnichenko, 2007,
El’gygytgyn impact crater, Russia: Structure, tectonics,
and morphology. Meteoritics & Planetary Science. vol. 42,
no. 3, pp. 307–319.

http://www.univie.ac.at/geochemistry/koeberl/publication_list/294-Elgygytgyn-structure-MAPS2007.pdf

and

http://www.univie.ac.at/geochemistry/koeberl/publication_list/

Yours,

Paul H.

Monday, 16 July 2007

Question About Petrographic Thin Section Problem

Question About Petrographic Thin Section Problem

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 15 00:49:01 EDT 2007

Dear Friends,

Recently, a friend of mine prepared three thin
sections for me of some rock samples. However,
about a week after he finished them, it was
noticed that something had gone wrong with the
epoxy, which was used to cement the rock billets
to the glass slide. Over a period of a week, it
had started crystallize causing numerous linear
strings of crystals to form between the 0.3 micron
layer of rock and the glass slide and clouding
what should have been a clear cement. Needless
to say, there is now nothing, which can done
about these slides and as thin epoxy crystallizes,
they will be a total loss. (Note: this is the
second time a batch of this brand of epoxy has
caused this problem.)

However, he noticed this problem right after he
had glued another billet to the glass slide and
before he done any trimming of the billet in
preparation for grinding. Since the epoxy used
in mounting this slide will crystallize in time,
we concluded that there was not any point in
proceed any further with the preparation of
this thin section.

Is there any way which I can remove the glass
slide from the prepared billet in case of this
sample?

If I could, then I could grind off the epoxy
cement, polish the billet, and glue it again to
a glass slide and prepare a thin section using
good epoxy, which will not crystallize. Getting
the sample cost me considerable time and effort
and would be difficult to recollect. Thus,
finding a way to remove the glass slide, so I
can prepare a thin section whose epoxy will not
crystallize from this billet would be quite
helpful.

The sample consists of sandstone.

Any suggestions about how can remove the glass
slide and start over with this sample would
greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Paul

Friday, 6 July 2007

Alaskan Muck (Mucks), Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited (Long)

Alaskan Muck (Mucks), Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited (Long)

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 5 09:09:35 EDT 2007

Mr. Grondine wrote;

"Thanks for the references to the post war research,
but I think you overstate your case."

Anyone, who takes the time and trouble to read through what
is called above " post war research", instead of mindlessly
dismissing it as "baffling BS" will find that what you "think"
is absolutely wrong. These publications provide overwhelming
evidence and arguments that show that I have not overstated
the case for the so-called Alaskan being composed largely of
eolian sediment, called "loess", and colluvial and other
deposits reworked from it and the complete lack of either any
megatsunami deposits or layers composed entirely of impact
ejecta.

You continued:

"Surely no archeological remains from 2 to 3 million
years ago are in the deposits which I refered to, and
which Hibbens examined.

Given that Hibben (1943) studied "
muck deposits exposed in the
grounds of the Fairbanks Exploration Company in the vicinity of
Fairbanks, Alaska.", it is quite clear that he did not limit his
examination to only those Alaskan "muck deposits", which contained
archaeology. Some of the peat layers (paleosols), which are
mentioned in Hibben (1943) likely are tens to hundreds of thousands
of years old. The youngest known "forest of trees", which occurs
buried in the deposits, which Hibben studied, is the Eva Forest Bed.
This bed has been dated as being about125,000 years old (Pewe et al.
1997).Thus, you are quite wrong about Hibben having only examined
so-called "Alaskan muck deposits" containing archaeology. Lacking
any sort of radiometric dating to guide him, Hibben (1943) wrongly
assumed that all of the so-called "muck deposits", which he was
studying, are young enough to contain archaeology.

References

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

Pewe, T. L., and others, 1997, Eva Interglaciation Forest
Bed, Unglaciated East-Central Alaska: Global Warming
125,000 Years Ago. Geological Society of America Special
Paper no. 319, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

You continued:

"The strata that I refered to did have archaeological
remains. They were also the source for the mega-fauna
ivory that was used commonly in the United States for
the manufacture of billiard balls and piano keys at
the turn of the last century."

Your distinction between Alaskan surficial strata containing
archaeological deposits and those that do not contain them
completely is a complete figment of your imagination. The
parts of the Engineering and Fairbanks loesses and Ready
Bullion Formation, which contain archaeological deposits,
are identical in texture, sedimentary structures, pedogenic
(soil) structures, cyrogenic structures, stratigraphic layering,
composition and other physical characteristics to the
underlying and older parts of these formations, which lack
archaeological deposits. If a person reads the papers, which
I provided citations for in my last post, they will find that
there is a complete lack of any significant scientific evidence,
which demonstrates that your distinction between the surficial
strata containing archaeology and older strata, which lack
them, has any scientific basis. These citations, all of which I
have either read at one time or the other, can be found at:

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

In fact, if person takes the time to look at what has been published
about the archaeological geology of cultural deposits found in these
deposits as reported in the peered-reviewed literature and Cultural
Resource Management reports, he or she will find that I am not at
all overstating the case to conclude that there is a complete
absence of any definite textural, stratigraphic, compositional, or
sedimentological evidence for any of the archaeology-bearing
deposits being of impact origin. Instead, a person find in these
publications an abundance of data and observations, which
repeatedly demonstrates that these surficial deposits consist of
eolian deposits, called loess, which have been modified by
colluvial, pedogenic, and other processes. One of these
publications is:

Esdale, J. A., Le Blanc, R. J., Cinq-Mars, J., 2001, Periglacial geoarchaeology at the Dog Creek
site, Northern Yukon.
Geoarchaeology. vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 151 – 176

This article provides a perfect example of the colluvial deposits
and loess, which have been disturbed by solifluction, frost heave,
and cryoturbation, which comprise the deposits, which you and
other claim to be the result of the imaginary catastrophe of choice.

Also, in 1978, archaeologists studied the location of a site along the
southern shore of Chinitna Bay between Coffin Creek and Sea Otter
Point, where Hibben (1943) claimed to have found a Paleo-Indian
point in his "muck deposits” (Myers 1980). Using his photographs,
they were able to relocate his site. Instead of any tsunami deposits,
they found “...marine muds and salt marsh deposits which are capped
by a layer of peat and, in some locations, by colluvial sediments.”
Within these sediments they found “one or more woody peats or
paleosols...”, of which one was the “humus stratum”, from which
Hibben (1943) reported to have found cultural material. They found
that the layer of “muck”, which was reported by Hibben (1943), at
this site, likely consists of a stratum of oxidized marine muds and
salt marsh deposits. In situ wood samples from a blue-grey clay,
which underlay Hibben’s cultural stratum, yielded two C-14 dates;
1. a date of 375+/-120 radiocarbon years: 1575 A.D. (GX-5655) and
2. a date of 300 +/-130 radiocarbon years: 1650 A.D. (GX-5656)
(Myer 1980). Neither the early man occupation, mammoth remains,
nor any Pleistocene sediments capable of containing them were found
where Hibben (1943) stated that he found them. Also, Hibben (1943)
was wildly wrong about the deposits exposed at Chinitna Bay being
**older** than the "muck deposits" near Fairbanks , Alaska. In this
and, very likely many other cases, Hibben grossly misinterpreted
both the age and origin of his Alaskan "muck deposits" and
exhibited a vivid imagination in what he has written about them.

References Cited:

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

Myers, T. P., Current research. American Antiquity. vol. 45,
no. 1, pp. 182-199.

You continued:

Why these mega-fauna all chose to die at the same
time is an interesting question."

This is a very fascinating question. However, abrupt disappearance
of megafauna have occurred during the Pleistocene at different times,
separated by tens of thousands of years on different continents. The
abrupt extinction, which occurred at the end of the last glacial stage
is not the unique event, which you and other catastrophists claim it
to be. It is simply impossible for a single extraterrestrial impact to
have caused multiple Pleistocene extinction events. For an idea of
the complex nature of the Pleistocene extinctions, a person can
read:

Barnosky, A. D., Koch, P. L., Feranec, R. S., Wing, S. L., Shabel,
A. B., 2004, Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions
on the Continents. Science. vol. 306, pp. 70-75.

Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G., and Lister,
A. M., 2004, Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in
giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature, vol 431, pp. 684-689.

In addition, there were two periods of terminal Pleistcoene
megafauna extinctions in North America as noted in
Elias (1999) and Stafford et al. (2005) and based upon 140 AMS
radiocarbon dates from protein extracted from bones of
Pleistocene megafauna collected from sites from all over North
America. concerning the research of Stafford and others, Elias
(1999) stated:

"It now appears that the major megafaunal extinction
event took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event
included the extinction of camels, horses, giant sloths,
Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal
mammals that did not survive beyond 11,400 14C yr
B.P., with the exception of the proboscideans.
Mammoths and mastodons persisted beyond
11,400 yr B.P. Stafford et al. have dated the extinction
of North American mammoth and mastodon to
10,900-10,850 yr B.P. So it now appears that there
were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event
took less than 100 years."

Also, the dating of dung, bones, and other tissue from late
Quaternary sloths, shows that not all of them "chose to die at the
same time". Steadman et al. (2005) stated:

" Radiocarbon dates directly on dung, bones, or other
tissue of extinct sloths place their “last appearance”
datum at ≈11,000 radiocarbon years before present
(yr BP) or slightly less in North America, ≈10,500 yr
BP in South America, and ≈4,400 yr BP on West
Indian islands."

This and other research certainly reveals that your statement,
"the mega-fauna all chose to die at the same", grossly oversimplifies
the complexity of Pleistcoene extinctions. I seriously doubt that the
mega-fauna “chose to die”, which sounds like they got together in
suicide pact, as the phrasing unintentionally suggests. :-) :-)

References Cited:

Elias, S. A., 1999, Quaternary Paleobiology Update Debate continues
over the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinction. The Quaternary
Times: Newsletter of the American Quaternary Association. vol. 29,
no. 1, p. 3
http://www.amqua.org/publications/quaternarytimes/v29n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm

Stafford, Jr., T. W., Graham, R., Lundelius, R., Semken, H.,
McDonald, H., and Southon, J., 2005,14C-Chronostratigraphy of
Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions in Relation to Human
Presence in the New World. Clovis in the Southeast Conference,
October 26-29, 2005, The College of Arts & Sciences, University
of South Carolina, Columbia South Carolina.
http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/stafford.html

Steadman, D. W., Martin, P. S., MacPhee, R. D. E., Jull, A. J. T., McDonald,|H. G., Woods, C. A.,
Iturralde-Vinent, M., and Hodgins
G. W. L., 2005, Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths
on continents and islands. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science. vol. 102, no. 33, pp. 11763–11768.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1187974

You wrote:

"As far as depositional mechanisms goes, I do not believe
that there has been any work done on these deposits since
the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a geological
process."

This is case of just because a person believes something to be
true does not make it true. The depositional mechanisms of these
Quaternary deposits in Alaska have been discussed in various
publications since "the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a
geological process." They include Lagroix and Banerjee (2004,
2006), Muhs et al. (2003), and Muhs and Budahn (2006).

Muhs and Budahn (2006), they did a very detail geochemical and
sedimentological analysis of these Alaskan Quaternary deposits.

Muhs and Budahn (2006) found:

"Major-element geochemistry shows that Alaskan loess
also has been derived, at least in part, from sediments
that have undergone one or more cycles of weathering
and Na-plagioclase depletion (Fig. 5). Loess in Alaska,
as elsewhere, appears to have a large component of
particles that have undergone previous cycles of
weathering and specifically Na-plagioclase depletion.
Such particles could be derived from weathered soils,
sedimentary rocks that have experienced a significant
degree of diagenetic alteration, highly altered
metamorphic rocks, or some combination of these
protoliths."

and

"Fairbanks-area loesses also show typical UCC (upper-
crustal) compositions on REE plots (Fig. 9). Samples at
all depths in all sections show enriched LREE, negative
Eu anomalies, and relatively flat HREE curves. The
Alaskan loess REE trends are in agreement with those
reported by investigators who have studied loess deposits
from other regions (Taylor et al. 1983; Gallet et al. 1996,
1998; Jahn et al. 2001).

They found the geochemical data to be indicative of wind-blown
sediments derived from the floodplains of the in Tanana, Nenana,
and Yukon rivers and typical of other known loess deposits.
There is nothing in their geochemical data, which is indicative
of any extraterrestrial component.

References Cited:

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2004, The regional and temporal
significance of primary aeolian magnetic fabrics preserved in
Alaskan loess. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. vol. 225,
pp. 379– 395

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2006, Discussion of "Geochemical
evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska"
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1887-1890.

Muhs, D. R. and Budahn, J. R., 2007, Geochemical evidence for
the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska. vol. 43, no. 3,
pp. 323-337.

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

Also a person can look at “A Complex Origin for the Late Quaternary
Loess in Central Alaska by D. R. Muhs and J. R. Budahn at:
http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/AW2004/get_abstr.html?id=28

You continued:

"Hibben ascribed them to volcanic activity, and
saw volcanic ash."

The mindless manner in which you keep citing of "Saint Hibbens"
as if he is the infallible source of all information about Pliocene
and Quaternary deposits of Alaska just indicates to me the extent
that you and other catastrophists are quite ignorant of any of
what you call “post war research”. This research clearly
demonstrates that Hibben's observations and interpretations, as in
case of Chinitna Bay, about these sediments are so badly flawed,
antiquated, and unreliable to the point they are quite useless in
any discussion of the origin of these deposits. In addition to these
problems, there exists significant doubts about the basic integrity
of his research concerning both Sandia Cave and Alaskan
early man sites. Some of these doubts are discussed in detail in
"The Mystery of Sandia Cave" by Douglas Preston as published
in the June 12, 1995 edition of the New Yorker Magazine.
Anyone, who automatically assumes that Hibben is a credible
and trustworthy authority needs to read this article.

Yes, there are thin volcanic ash beds ranging from Pliocene, through
the Pleistocene, and into the Holocene in age, which occur these
surficial Pliocene and Quaternary sediments. All they prove is that
major volcanic eruptions, as is typical of the Aleutian arc, have
occurred throughout the late Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene
and 2. that the deposits containing these thin ash beds accumulated episodically over the last
two to three millions years. The wide
range of stratigraphically consistent dates that have obtained from
these ash beds soundly demolishes any claim that these deposits,
even the loess and collivial deposits containing archaeology,
accumulated as the result of single catastrophic event. In addition,
the thinness of all of these ash beds demonstrate cataclysmic
volcanic eruption had nothing to do with the formation of beds.

You continued:

"To my knowledge, they have never been examined
for impactites; the recent work that was done on the
holocene start impacts was privately funded to the
tune of some $70,000.

I think that ALL of these studies will need to be
re-examined before the questions of depositional
mechanisms is considered settled."

As summarized in Muhs et al. (2003), the fact of the matter is
that the depositional mechanisms that created the Pliocene and
Quaternary deposits covering large areas of Alaska and Adjacent
parts of Canada have been repeatedly examined in very fine detail
a number of times and are extremely well known. There is more
than enough data and observations to found in the published
literature to: 1. soundly demolish any possibility that they contain
any megatsunami deposits and 2. demonstrate that they consist
only of a mixture of loess and colluvium largely derived from
loess. An re-examination of the depositional processes for these
deposits is the equivalent of beating a horse that is not only dead,
but has decomposed into a weathered pile of bones. However,
this is a free country. If you want to waste your life; pour your
personal money down a rathole; and make a complete and utter
fool of yourself by trying to duplicating 60 years and a couple
million dollars worth of geological research, it is your problem
not mine.

Another is problem is that none of the numerous known examples
of tsunami and megatsunami deposits remotely resemble any of
the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene deposits within the
Fairbanks, Alaska region. However, that is another two to three
page essay and a couple of dozen citations to add to this post.

Given the way loess accumulates, there could be widely scattered
extraterrestrial / impact-related material to found in these deposits.
However, like the volcanic ash beds found in it, this material will
be completely unrelated to how these sediments accumulated.
Examples of such material, which can be found in loess, is the
horizon of Australasian microtektites, which has been recognized
in loess sections in China (Li et al. 1993) and impactite-bearing
horizons found in Argentine loesses. They would be more practical
and productive stuff to look for.

References Cited:

Li, C. L., Ouyang, Z. Y., Liu, T. S., An, Z. S., 1993.
Microtektites and glassy microspherules in loess—their discoveries
and implications. Science in China B. vol. 36, pp. 1141–1152.

Muhs, D.R., and Bettis, E.A., III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol
sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes:
Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/eolian/MuhsBettis2003GSAsp370.pdf

You wrote:

“Finally, you left Alain and Delair out of your
list of cranks.”

I failed to mention their book because I did not want embarrass
you by associating you with such a laughably ignorant piece of
pseudoscholarship. The degree to which this book is functionally
illiterate in its understanding of Quaternary, planetary, and other
types of geology is shown by the manner in which it confuses
Midwestern glacial tills with either megatsunami or volcanic
deposits and argues that deep sea manganese nodules are the
result of an extraterrestrial impact. This book consists of the type
of very sloppy and careless thinking, which a person expects to
see in the answers to essay questions in freshman level college
courses, but not in a book, which pretends to be a serious piece
of scholarly research. This book is one of the reasons that
research concerning terminal Pleistocene catastrophes has
acquired a significant “giggle factor” among conventional
geologists.

Some web pages on manganese nodules:

Manganese nodules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/EarthScience/Oceanography/OceanSediments/Manganesenodules/Manganesenodules.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5504/abs/255130a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5082/abs/2131218a0.html

You finely wrote:

“But then as the saying goes, if you can't win on
points, baffle them with BS.”

That you have to dismiss 60 years of “post war research”, which I
discussed in my post, out-of-hand as “BS” just shows to me how
completely lacking in either any evidence or arguments, outside
of Hibben’s antiquated and discredited research, which you have
to support your ideas about there being any tsunami deposits in
the so-called “Alaskan muck”.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Sunday, 1 July 2007

EBAY Slag for sale

EBAY Slag for sale

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 30 14:52:37 EDT 2007

On Jun 28 23:19:27 EDT 2007, Bill wrote:

"Starchasers is a good one. Meteorites falling
in his general direction constantly. All new
Illinois finds too. Look at his 454 GRAM IRON
NICKEL METEORITE SPECIMEN." ...text deleted


another person wrote:

" Here's another one selling common filth as
expensive meteorites on eBay - with some victims
making bids, too:
"

Maybe someone should buy a couple of the least expensive
items being sold by this person on eBay; have them analyzed
by a couple of experts; and publish the results of the
investigations in a popular article and forward the results
to the proper authorities.

Also, if someone living in Illinois truly believes that this
or any other person living in Illinois is dealing in fake
meteorites, it seems like they need to complain to the Consumer
Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General Office
given that he appears to reside in Illinois. The selling
multiple pieces of slag to people as meteorites for tens or
hundreds of dollars, should easily qualify as felony fraud.

The web page for the Consumer Protection Division of the
Illinois Attorney General Office can be found at:

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/consumers/index.html

Also, there is "Submit Questions to the Office of the Illinois
Attorney General"

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/email_ag.jsp

Maybe someone can ask the Illinois Attorney General Office
if they should be doing something about this bozo? Simply
griping about such people on Internet message boards is not
going to accomplish anything. Maybe if they received enough
complaints and questions about what can be done, the Illinois
Attorney General Office might decide it is time to investigate
the validity of what is being sold on eBay?

Also, it seems to me that using the mails to send people
fraudulent merchandise and selling such items also should
violate mail and wire fraud laws, including Postal Service
regulations. However, I serious doubt the authorities will
do anything unless someone takes the time and trouble to
complain. Talking the talk needs to be followed up with
walking the walk.

Best Regards,

Paul