> Harte Wrote:
> > You are using one set of fringe writers to back
> > what another fringe writer claims.
> > Might as well ask Pat Robertson about ancient
> > history.
> You just buried yourself. The quote I gave is from
> Richard Firestone a nuclear physicist, Allen West
> PhD and Warwick-Smith a geologist. They are not
> fringe writers and it's funny you think they are.
> I'm pretty sure they have a firmer grasp on C14
> dating than you do. [/quote]
That's possible, but yes, they are fringe writers:
Based on elevated concentrations of a set of “impact markers” at the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial from sedimentary contexts across North America, Firestone, Kennett, West, and others have argued that 12.9 ka the Earth experienced an impact by an extraterrestrial body, an event that had devastating ecological consequences for humans, plants, and animals in the New World [Firestone RB, et al. (2007) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 104:16016–16021]. Herein, we report the results of an independent analysis of magnetic minerals and microspherules from seven sites of similar age, including two examined by Firestone et al. We were unable to reproduce any results of the Firestone et al. study and find no support for Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact.
Show me their "black mat" in Siberia, where these mammoths are found.
The mammoths died over a period of thousands of years, and evidence for a couple show drowning and burial in landslides. Note:
"The absolute age in years of the frozen carcasses was for a long time a subject of speculation. During recent years, with the availability of Carbon 14 dating, the exact age of many of them has become known, with surprising results. Their ages fall into two main groups, one ranging in age from 45,000 years to 30,000 years and a smaller number of remains from 14-11,000 years old.
Even if you believe everything you think you know about C14, these mammoths, had they died even in the same season, would not show such a spread of dates.
> > If the above is all you know about C14, it's no
> > wonder you hold a worldview that is utterly
> > incorrect.
> The above wasn't what I knew, it's what the
> 3 authors knew. So how would your expertise exceed
> theirs? This board is "Mysteries" not "Comedies".
You have yet to link what these authors claimed to the Siberian mammoths. Because of that, you haven't provided any citation at all for anything having to do with the Siberian finds Hancock made claims about in the book I posted about.
> > > > Was there some sort of environmental
> > > > every year?
> > >
> > > You have no idea what catastrophes there
> > the
> > > testing that has been performed nor the info
> > > written about it.
> > >
> > > > Animals die. When they die in the tundra,
> > they
> > > > sometimes get frozen.
> > > >
> > > > There was no "flash" freezing, and there's
> > > nothing
> > > > at all unusual about these mammoths nor the
> > > > contents of their mouths/stomachs.
> > >
> > > Except for the magnetic grains in the tusks
> > > the black mat covering.[/quote]
> > Citation?
> Citation is the 3 authors I quoted, who tested at
> Lawrence Livermore & NASA labs and other labs.
> Imagine that! particles from tusks being tested by
> the best labs, what a concept. The black mat which
> evidently is news to you, is discovered, excavated
> and unexplained and therefore 'cited' by more than
> one archaeologist. Like I said, you have a lot of
> catching up to do and I'm not doing the work for
> you. [/quote]
None of that is a surprise to me. Do you think I only just started in on this subject?
Your citation says nothing about the mammoths we were talking about. Why are you sidestepping your own claim?
Also, it was you that made the claim. It is your job to back it up, or concede that it's wrong.
You somehow think I need to back up your claim of "flash-frozen" mammoths here.
So, I take that as a concession, until you can provide any evidence for any major mammoth-freezing cataclysm.
You know what the black mat is made from don't you?
You realize it's not made from cold, right?
> Do you mean Hancock's source on frozen mammoths? I
> don't care what it is because I don't think he's
> an expert on the subject and I haven't read all
> his books. If you think he has a credible source
> then you cite it. Meanwhile I'm going with
> those who have actually investigated.
It's Hancock's claim that I refute, remember? Therefore, Hancock's source is the pivotal one, not your opinion of whether Hancock knows what he's talking about here (there's no way to know if he lied purposefully or just copied other fringe writer's claims, like he did in most of FOTG.)