> Harte Wrote:
> > Why don't you ask Firestone about flash frozen
> > mammoths?
> > He'd laugh you out of the room.
> How would you know, do you know him personally?
> You assume a great deal.
So? Why don't you try it?
Or, alternately, you could provide some statements from Firestone regarding the "flash freezing" of mammoths and how it fits into his theory about a Younger Dryas Impact.
> > If you cherry pick what parts of scientific
> > investigations you prefer to believe,
> > can support any idiotic theory at all.
> You had asked :
Can you explain how an
> impact event can cause instantaneous
> 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.
Your scenario cannot cause freezing in any form, unless you believe tektites form by flash freezing rocks together into a mass of glass.
> > The idea that you can dismiss the C14 dates of
> > these mammoths with a wave of your hand (with
> > reason whatsoever, in other words) and then
> > decide in your mind - again, for no reason
> > whatsoever - that they all died simultaneously
> > laughable.
> 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.
So, individual mammoths were "flash frozen" at different times?
What happened. Mr. Freeze drop by?
> > Not to mention all the other bogus, so-called
> > "evidence" of flash freezing (tropical
> > in the teeth and stomachs, etc.)
> Are you saying there was no vegetation found in
> any of the mammoth's mouths?
There was no tropical vegetation.
The only vegetation found was native to the Siberian steppes, and grows there even today.
> > Like I said, Hancock forwarded this lie in FOTG
> > along with many others. He had the info
> > that utterly debunks this claim (except for
> > Audrey) and so should have known better,
> > 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.
E. W. Pfizenmayer 1901, B. A. Tikhomirov, Botanical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Memoires de L'Academie imperials des Sciences de St. Petersbouro, VII Serie, Tome XLII, No. 13., Wissenschaftliche Resultate der Von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften sur Erforschung des Janalandes und der Neusibirischen Inseln in den Jahren 1885 und 1886 Ausgesandten expedition. ["Scientific Results of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of the Investigation of Janaland and the New Siberian Islands from the Expeditions Launched in 1885 and 1886" -- ed.] Abtheilung III: Die fossilen Eislager und ihre Beziehungen su den Mammuthleichen, by Baron Eduard v. Toll (St. Peterabourg: Commissionnaires de I'Academie Imperiale des sciences, 1895)
> > Same is true for the Pacal sarcophagus I
> > mentioned, and dozens of other claims he noted
> > 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.
The subject of Hancock's book was brought up by somebody else. My original comment in this thread addresses that subject.