> 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.)
> No, I do not know what Hancock's claim is nor do I
> care. Whatever he claimed about the mammoths you
> assert are "falsehoods" & "easily refuted" but you
> do not say why or how.
> If you choose to believe the mainstream consensus
> on C14 without question it is your prerogative.
> There are other factors involved with the mammoths
> besides C14, but all you mentioned was "original
> reports". That you do not consider the other
> evidence only shows me that your study is narrow
> and incomplete.
You know what the black mat is made from
> don't you?
> You realize it's not made from cold,
> If I didn't have knowledge of it, I wouldn't bring
> it up. The black mat is also not a closed case. It
> seems you prefer quick easy answers, so no wonder
> you have already turned a deaf ear to this subject
> This is BS. You pounce on an alt board makingQuote
Also, it was you that made the claim. It is
> your job to back it up, or concede that it's
> declarations of frozen mammoths being refuted when
> no such thing has happened. The evidence is
> readily available, I don't need to present it. I'm
> not doing the work for you. Besides, the evidence
> is too vast and detailed to present in this
> thread. I cannot condense entire books into a
> couple of paragraphs. Catastrophic events are
> being studied, events that would thoroughly
> explain frozen mammoths. I have no need to remove
> you from your adherence to the status quo. My only
> job is to show you are a mainstream clone and
> there is data out there if anyone wishes to
> inquire. I could turn around and say it is your
> job to back up the claim or refutation
> or concede that it is wrong.
> Making a declaration that frozen mammoths are
> disproved by C14 is simplistic and will not hold
> water on this board. At the heart of the matter
> are the theories that a cosmic event caused
> extinctions as recently as 13,000 yrs ago. This is
> not acceptable to mainstream. I guarantee you will
> not have the last word on this board on impact
> events, extinctions and frozen mammoths. Do you
> think the alts are stupid Hancock worshippers who
> don't do their own research?
You were the one that mentioned the "black mat" in conjunction with the "flash frozen" mammoths.
Why then haven't you shown where such a black mat was associated with even a single one of these mammoths in Siberia?
You can't just say "black mat" and think you've covered it.
Or can you?
Can you explain how an impact event can cause instantaneous freezing?