> Why don't you ask Firestone about flash frozen
> He'd laugh you out of the room.
How would you know, do you know him personally? You assume a great deal.
> If you cherry pick what parts of scientific
> investigations you prefer to believe, you
> can support any idiotic theory at all.
You had asked :
Can you explain how an impact event can cause instantaneous freezing?
YOU asked a question and I gave you one scenario from science that "can cause instantaneous freeaing", obviously you don't like it because now you want to call it cherry picking AND you presume to call their theory idiotic. What did you think an impact would cause - a big boom and some trees are blown over. You have no idea but you do have the audacity to ignore those in science who do have an inkling.
> The idea that you can dismiss the C14 dates of
> these mammoths with a wave of your hand (with no
> reason whatsoever, in other words) and then simply
> decide in your mind - again, for no reason
> whatsoever - that they all died simultaneously is
You just make one assumption after another, you're quite good at it. I DID NOT say all the mammoths died simultaneously. It is you who are unaware of the problems of C14 dating.
> Not to mention all the other bogus, so-called
> "evidence" of flash freezing (tropical vegetation
> in the teeth and stomachs, etc.)
Are you saying there was no vegetation found in any of the mammoth's mouths?
> Like I said, Hancock forwarded this lie in FOTG
> along with many others. He had the info available
> that utterly debunks this claim (except for
> Audrey) and so should have known better, assuming
> he didn't know better already.
What EXACTLY is that info? In the words (that I so dislike) of your comrades "care to enlighten us?" Or do you just want to stomp and shout without knowing exactly what you're shouting about.
> Same is true for the Pacal sarcophagus I
> mentioned, and dozens of other claims he noted in
> that book.
> This alone is the reason I won't buy another of
> his "works."
Sounds like you have a personal grievance with Hancock. Have no idea why you keep going back to his books.