Hi all - I didn't get too far before I found another message which seemed to need some comment.
We can argue theory here or we can get data and then try to form theory. Might I suggest my book "Man and Impact in the Americas" as a good startting point? $34.95 via 1-877-494-0044 Ancient American or 1-800-718-4514 Adventures Unlimited (The later because I believe in starting with the most confused first. I don't know if they still take orders - I discovered four weeks ago that AU's founder David Hatcher Childress was (is) a disciple of the late cult leader and sexual predator Richard Kieninger, and am now working on a detailed article on that loon.) In any case, it looks like we might have some observational answers by 2022, depending on where Schwassmann Wachmann 3 ends up. Anybody have the latest orbital calcs for its 64 fragments and its dust stream? Good Hunting - EP --- "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, List (and Marco) > > [Re-Post of previous post. No idea why my > email program decided to space the message > out the way it did. It's hard to read, so here's > (I hope) normal text.] > > Marco, I seem to have a talent for annoying you. > I apologize for annoying you. However, I would like > to point out that my posting was addressed to The > List > and to Paul Barford who asked the question in the > first place. I did not even copy you. Could I point > out that not every posting to The List is directed > at > you, personally. True, you had also answered him, > and I referred to your reply because I disagreed > with it. > > > > Don't lecture me that condescendingly man. > > > Who's got the PhD in prehistoric > > archaeology here? > > > However, disagreement is not condescension. If > you > read what I wrote, you might see that I was > addressing > The List generally, and presenting the historical > background > of the hypothesis. I narrated what Napier and Clube > thought (and wrote) when they first suggested it in > the > 1970's. (At least I think they were first.) I made > no > evaluation of their notion, nor gave my own personal > opinion of it. > > > > Which is a naive "Pompeii Premise" about general > > taphonomic processes and ignores that in the 19th > century, taphonomic and > > post-depositional processes were concepts still > completely ignored. And > > catastrophic thinking reigned those days. > > Have you ever been to a peat excavation? > > It looks like Tunguska allright, fallen tree > trunks everywhere. Only it > > isn't. > > > I have not read the original they cited for this > discovery, > so I can't evaluate it, either. I don't even know if > it WAS a > peat excavation. Are you familiar with the > citation, or are > you just making the assumption that it was a peat > bog? > I would also point out that Britons have been > digging > in peat bogs for millennia and are probably pretty > familiar > with what one looks like... If that's what it was. > If they > thought this excavation, peat or not, was different, > they > could probably tell. Anglesey has peat bogs, and > they > have been dug for fuel since prehistoric times, and > Anglesey has lots of prehistory, so I assume a > familiarity > with peat on the part of Anglesey excavators. > > > > Large impact phenomena come with a suit of > > identifiable things. If there was such an event in > Britain as recent as AD > > 540, > > then where are the ejecta layers, the dust layers, > the spherule layers, > > the impact > > glasses, the shocked quartz, the impact craters, > the extinction events in > > flora and fauna? There is no reason why these > should have vanished from > > the > > geological record in this case. > > > You should really become familiar with the > hypotheses you > are ridiculing. Neither Napier and Clube nor Baillie > nor anyone > else that I am aware of have ever suggested any > impact like that > (or any impact), with an accompanying cratering > event, ejecta, > spherules, glasses, shocked quartz -- none of that, > for which > there is no evidence. Dust, yes, and climatic > change, and effects > on flora and fauna (but not extinctions) for all of > which there > is evidence. What you put forward in this remark is > a "straw > man" argument, in which you grossly mischaracterize > a > hypothesis, then proceed to demolish your own > misrepresentation of it very effectively. > The term "cometary impact" could, in this > context, refer to > a series of atmospheric entries and disintegration > of many > low-density objects which would load the Earth's > atmosphere > with dust to the extent of reducing solar input and > causing > sudden and irregularly distributed "coolings." No > objects > would ever get within 20-40 miles of the Earth's > surface. > And large, very high-altitude airbursts could > produce loads > of catastrophic results and leave little physical > evidence > except its extremely disruptive effects. There would > be surficial > damage to flora, "years without summers," dustfalls, > crop > failures, ecological disruptions which could include > sudden > outbreaks of diseases due to the forced migration of > their > vectors. This last happened in 541 AD with the first > known > pandemic of bubonic plague in Europe. > We have seen here on The List in many exciting > news > flashes of huge fireballs and the hope for object > recovery, > how rarely that happens, but every one, in > fragmenting, dropped > dust into our atmosphere. There are Hiroshima sized > airbursts > every year in the upper atmosphere, sometimes two or > three > a year. Just increase the frequency to where there > are > Hiroshima sized airbursts EVERY DAY and dozens of > huge > fireballs somewhere on Earth EVERY NIGHT. There > would > be 100's of meteorite falls a year, and still no > "impacts" or > craters, perhaps for years, and even then, likely > only small ones. > Increase the frequency again ten-fold or more, > but hypothesize > it's all from a swarm of small weak objects -- never > a crater, > never a tsunami, never an overt "disaster." Increase > it ten-fold > again if you want it. And again... What's happening? > Countless > millions of tons of dust are raining into the > atmosphere, persisting > for years, the sunlight is dim and watery, there's > ice on the pond > in July. As the dust accumulates, it just gets worse > and worse, a > progressive disaster. Human functioning societies > and agriculture > at 50 degrees N. and S. become impossible, then at > 40 degrees > N. and S., then 35... Populations begin to migrate, > societies > break down, nations become fictions, order > disintegrates. > We all know the scenario, if we've seen enough bad > movies, > except of course, they're never bad enough... Mad > Max just > isn't crazy enough, much too elegant and well-fed > for reality. > We don't even need that swarm of small weak > bodies. > Just the dust is enough all by itself. It's hard to > get people to > take this seriously, it's so UN-spectacular. Big > deal, dust... > One might doubt how much dust could be dumped in > the > atmosphere by "cometary" (or other) bodies, and ask > where > is the evidence, the layers of deposits, but it > would all > be washed into the oceans and their sediments are in > fact > fat with interplanetary and cometary dust, untagged > as to > origin and method of dispersal. > And then the eposide would be over, the swarm > out of > the way, or the interstellar dust stream passed, and > we start > to recover. The eposide might be minor, might be > severe, > might return in a few decades, might vanish for a > century. > There would be little physical evidence left behind > but the > reports of the damage, hence the interest in old > chronicles. > On to history... > > > > Complex societies are inherently instable. There's > no need > > for a clear-cut external prime-mover to make such > a society > > collapse. > > > Since the Roman empire (E. Division) under > Justinian was > virtually as complex as Western Civilization over > most of the > past half millennium, why, I expect we'll go under > any day > now, then? Western Civilization has managed to avoid > this > "inherent" potential for destruction for at least > 500 years. > We ought to be ready to just go "poof!" any minute > now... > Should have already done it. Wonder why not? > > > > DON'T NEED TO HAVE a clearly identifiable > prime-mover. > > Thinking in prime-movers only to explain > (pre-)historic change > > is utterly simplistic. > > > What you call "prime-movers" is what we call > "cause," as in > that familiar duo of "cause and effect." I realize > that you regard the > notion of "cause and effect" as "in my opinion... > pseudo-science," > etc., etc. At the risk of labeling myself as an > intellectual dinosaur, > as insufficiently post-modern, hopelessly naive, as > un-hip, as > definitely not-with-it, I will confess that I > ACTUALLY BELIEVE > that events HAVE causes! Gasp! What an archaic idea. > Oh, wait a minute... > > > > That's why the whole neo-catastrophic movement of > > primarily ASTROPHYSICISTS who bring up cosmic > impact as a prime-mover in > > far too many cases of (pre-) > > historic change is just a too simplistic look on > (pre-)history > > > I see, it's only "cosmic impacts" that can't be > causes. Any > other cause or causes is OK with you. Now I get it. > I thought > you just denied all causality as a philosophic > principle (like > Hume), but it's just one particular cause that you > object to. > > > > Clube, Napier, Steel and such have their own > agenda to see > > "impacts" in history and recent pre-history > everywhere. It ties > > in with their idea's on the evolution of the > Taurid meteor > > complex as being derived from the arrival and > breakup of a > > giant comet a few millenia ago... > > > You gotta read'em before you stomp on'em: that > "few millenia" > is 20,000 to 60,000 years ago, possibly 100,000 > years ago, > says N & C. That is a FEW millennia. It is a strong > hypothesis > because this kind of progressive breakup and > evolution of bodies > is exactly how objects get supplied to orbits of > limited lifetimes, > like Near-Earth and Apollo orbits, something we did > not understand > well in the middle 1970's and that they helped to > highlight. Remember, > in the 1970's there were still many Ph.D geologists > who ridiculed > the idea that the craters on the Moon were from > impacts, a silly > American notion, they said, when it's obvious > they're volcanic. > They had to be right; they had Ph.D's, didn't they? > Impact was a struggling new idea when N & C > wrote. It's not > an agenda; it's an hypothesis, and they not hiding > it. > OK, astronomically, their notion about the > breakup of the > Comet Encke parent body is not bad, really > well-done. But > (like you, I suspect), I thought the Von D�niken > tone of their > books was silly and their reading of most of the > history in those > books silly and childish. I can see how it would > more than > annoy you. Since their astronomy is good and the > rest of their > writings are ridiculous, I like to imagine an editor > at their > publishing house pushed them to accept that > best-seller > style crap as filler for the sake of sales... > See, I like to think the best of everybody. > Maybe it was > their idea. Maybe they needed the money. Maybe they > wanted, politically, to worry enough people to get > the > notion taken seriously... Their history is goonish, > wherever it came from. > You've got to separate the good idea from its > all-too-human > context. Kepler was a famed and money-making > astrologer, > yet equal areas are swept out in equal times, > nevertheless. > > > > As far as short-term climatic fluctuation is > concerned, > > there is much more cause to look at variations in > solar flux > > as a possible explanation . > > > I want to stop and savor this moment when we > agree > almost perfectly. That's obviously not a frequent > event. > What better way to explain SHORT-TERM solar flux > variation than the short but intense dumping of > opaque > (or reflective) particulate matter into the Earth's > atmosphere? > It would settle on a time scale much shorter than > what we > know of innate solar variation. > You see, I think you, and perhaps some > "neo-catastrophists," > think of the term "impact" in a much too restricted > sense. A dust > grain stumbling into the Earth's atmosphere and > getting stuck there > is a kind of cosmic impact. Enough dust in a short > enough time > could be more catastrophic than anyone imagines. > We just don't appreciate the role of dust, but > we're learning. > I reference the recent discovery of supernovae iron > isotopes in > sediments only 2.3 million years old, the heavy dust > layer deposited > on the Earth 8.3 million years ago by the breakup of > the Veritas > asteroid family. The 2.2-2.3 mya dust event has been > proposed > as the cause of a marine mass extinction at that > time. > And then, there's even more recent isotope > anomalies > discovered by Firestone, over which we disagreed, I > recall. > His hypothesis was utterly ridiculous, a "comet" > formed in > a supernovae. OK, he's an idiot (outside of his > expertise) > with a perfectly idiotic explanation of how these > materials > got here, mammoths being shot with interstellar > particles and > becoming extinct. Because it was so silly, you > questioned totally > the validity of their presence and dating on > "depositational" > arguments, wanting to dump the whole thing, > dismissing > the isotopic evidence as irrelevant and proving > nothing, but > these isotopes have since been found and similarly > dated in > Antarctic ice cores, where "depositational" issues > are moot. > They fell out of the atmosphere. They're almost > certainly the > dust from supernovae, possibly the > Scorpius-Centaurus > supernovae complex, possibly a closer former > supernovae > as yet undiscovered. > Not all catastrophes are Hollywood-style. If you > insist on a > Hollywood spectacular, Google up HR 8210 (aka IK > Pegasi B). > Could it find an extra 0.15-0.27 solar mass in dust > or a stray > super-Jupiter-body and let go tomorrow? It would > certainly be > spectacular, during the interval when we were still > alive, that is. > Granted, wisps of interstellar dust or sudden > effusions of > asteroidal or cometary dust or even a swarm of small > weak > bodies breaking up in the Earth's upper atmosphere > are not as > picturesque nor as suitable for Hollywood movies as > big > splashy impacts, but they can deliver as much or > more > disruption as all but the best of the planet > crashers. Of course, > direct exposure to a nearby supernovae is a > spectacular > possibility, but interstellar drifts of supernova > dust can > be almost as bad, not only unspectacular but hardly > noticeable... until it's too late. > Since I've disagreed with you (and > extensively), I'll > apologize in advance for annoying you again, Marco. > Isn't strange how everybody doesn't agree on > everything? > > > Sterling K. Webb > ------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marco Langbroek" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "meteorite list" > <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 5:54 AM > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Re:Comet hit Britain in > mid sixth, century, AD? > > > > > >> Sterling K. Webb wrote: > >> > >>> The scientist you're referring to is Michael > Baillie, > >>> an Irish dentrochronologist (not Bailey). > >> > >> Too many Bailey'/Baillie's around, sorry... And > its dendrochronologist, > >> not > >> dentrochronologist. > >> > >> > >>> Their suggestion arose from uncovering a > 19th century > >>> account of an excavation on the island of > Anglesey (which > >>> is the least forested portion of the UK, less > than 0.5%) > >>> of an ancient forest which had been flattened > and crushed > >>> wholesale and apparently instantaneously and > which to > >>> them greatly resembled a naive description of > the flattened > >>> forest on the Tungus River caused by the > Tunguska object, > >>> only much larger. > >> > >> Which is a naive "Pompei Premise" about general > taphonomic processes and > >> ignores that in the 19th century, taphonomic and > post-depositional > >> processes were concepts still completely ignored. > And catastrophic > >> thinking reigned those days. > >> Have you ever been to a peat excavation? It looks > like Tunguska allright, > >> fallen tree trunks everywhere. Only it isn't. > >> > >> > >>> Yes, Marco, History is Change. But there are > also > >>> those "with a known fetish" AGAINST impacts or > any > >>> other physical event as a source" for any > historical change. > >>> The sudden collapse of the "Byzantine" or > eastern Roman > >>> Empire after 534 AD is without known social, > political, > >>> economic, military nor other human cause. It is > the sudden > >>> commencement of the Dark Ages for no apparent > reason. > >>> Dark Ages are rare, and always without apparent > explanation > >>> (1200 BC to 800 BC is another, and there was > another > >>> about 4000 years ago, too). > >> > >> > >> Don't lecture me that condescendingly man. Who's > got the PhD in > >> prehistoric > >> archaeology here? > >> > >> The point is that many (pre-) historic events > indeed DON'T HAVE and DON'T > >> NEED > >> TO HAVE a clearly identifiable prime-mover. > Thinking in prime-movers only > >> to > >> explain (pre-)historic change is utterly > simplistic. That's why the whole > >> neo-catastrophic movement of primarily > ASTROPHYSICISTS who bring up > >> cosmic impact as a prime-mover in far too many > cases of (pre-)historic > >> change is just a too simplistic look on > (pre-)history, and in my opinion > >> is pseudo-science. > >> > >> Complex societies are inherently instable. > There's no need for a > >> clear-cut > >> external prime-mover to make such a society > collapse. > >> > >> Volcanic super eruptions, cosmic impacts and > other natural disasters > >> happen. And > >> when they happen, they can have a profound impact > on human society in the > >> affected area, no doubt (an appendix to my own > dissertation explores the > >> possible effekts of the Australasian impact for > early Asian Homo erectus, > >> in fact). And there are some good historic > examples of that too (for the > >> case of volcanic eruptions at least). > >> But some people use them as Dei ex Machinae to > explain everything we > >> don't > >> readily understand. > >> > >> Large impact phenomena come with a suit of > identifiable things. If there > >> was such an event in Britain as recent as AD 540, > then where are the > >> ejecta layers, the dust layers, the spherule > layers, the impact glasses, > >> the shocked quartz, the impact craters, the > extinction events in flora > >> and fauna? There is no reason why these should > have vanished from the > >> geological record in this case. > >> > >> A set of narrow tree rings that can have multiple > causes is not enough to > >> see an impact evidenced. And its all we have > here. A very meagre set of > >> proxy data by all means. I do not doubt Baillie's > tree ring analysis, but > >> the whole hypothesis attached to it I do doubt > for it is founded on very > >> flimsy multi-interpretable proxy data. > >> > >> As far as short-term climatic fluctuation is > concerned, there is much > >> more cause to look at variations in solar flux as > a possible explanation > >> than to impact. > >> > >> Clube, Napier, Steel and such have their own > agenda to see "impacts" in > >> history > >> and recent pre-history everywhere. It ties in > with their idea's on the > >> evolution > >> of the Taurid meteor complex as being derived > from the arrival and > >> breakup of a > >> giant comet a few millenia ago. They believe this > showered the earth with > >> impact > >> fragments. As a result, they have a strong > tendency to see everything > >> which in > >> their perception is "odd" in the history of the > past few millenia as > >> "evidence" > >> for their theory. Even Stonehenge is a giant > memorial to celestial Taurid > >> displays in e.g. Steels opinion. In my opinion, > this conceptually is very > >> near > >> to Von D�niken seeing Alien influence and > references to Alien visitors > >> everywhere as its the result of a similar > simplistic and biased idee-fixe > >> look > >> at (pre-) history. > >> > >> And please note that "Dark age" is an often > misused and misunderstood > >> concept. It says more about our inability to > access the character of that > >> period, than about that period itself. > >> > >> - Marco > >> > >> ----- > >> Dr Marco Langbroek > >> Dutch Meteor Society (DMS) > >> > >> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> private website > http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek > >> DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org > >> ----- > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> Meteorite-list mailing list > >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > >> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > >> > > > > > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list