The latest papers that support the Younger Dryas Boundary impact event hypothesis (YDB) give us an object lesson in science, as we have followed all the YDB developments since 2007 and even before.

On one hand it is very cool (like I’ve said before) to be this close to a revolutionary concept that has taken more and more form as time has gone on (irrespective of how much more work there is to be done by the YDB Team and the independents).  As solid as the work has been, season after season it’s been a privilege to see it all come in, one paper at a time.

On the other hand, it has also been educational about how resistance to new ideas by some groups/teams/cliques are possibly causing them to almost defraud science with sloppy work that is so slanted it is hard to see it as anything but intentional.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment; perhaps they are in areas they don’t know well enough.

After all, it is NEW, and new means new ground, new associations, and new interpretations of past studies. And it is not just a little bit new. It is a LOT new.  Since that scientific past was gradualistic and the new hypothesis is non-gradualistic, the underlying foundation shifts to an entirely different framework, and some existing evidence will need different interpretations and existing ideas may need different approaches.

There may be a LOT that needs rethinking.  It’s not just that gradualists might fight tooth and nail. Evidence that has been interpreted as climate-caused may have to concede that the climate ITSELF was not a cause but an effect.  Bond events and possibly Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events may have to be rethought.  The emptying of Lake Agassiz may have a different history.  The Great Lakes may become the region of great searches for one or more impact sites (albeit shielded by ice sheets).  (That might be much easier – or harder – than the search for Alvarez’s impact site 30 years ago.)

What are NOT new are the physical laws governing the chemistry, geology, impacts, atmosphere, ice ages, botany, climatology, and NEOs – though even those may need to be looked into as regarding corollaries and assumptions arising from the laws (as understood before and after).  In addition, it will likely require broadening inch-by-inch what is accepted about impactors and impacts:  First it was nothing that could fall from the sky; then it was small rocks, then it was meteors only, then it was comets hitting planets, and soon it will be objects hitting Earth.

What’s next?  To find out how differently composed objects have impacted in different ways?  I would hope so.  We can’t fall back to one of those earlier understandings.  New times are afoot!

It has not even been 200 years since rocks from the sky/space have been accepted as being other than wild tales. And it’s only been since Gene Shoemaker and Luis Alvarez in the 1980s that impactors have been recognized as solid science. So all of this is only in its gestation period now. In such a period – going off in a new direction – it should be expected that new evidence will arise and widen our perspective. The old fuddy-duddy thinking that only what has already been proven is allowed may be, in the long run, pretty dumb and mind-bogglingly limiting and short-sighted.

It seems more and more likely that all of this – that a body or bodies hit the Earth well into in homo sapiens sapiens times – will someday before long be an accepted part of the panoply of science. It will not be a defeat for gradualism, but show that the natural history of our planet and solar system is more complicated than had been thought and needs an adjustment or two. But it may put gradualism on notice that it doesn’t own the podium anymore. Some such adjustment should have been fairly obvious after the SL-9 impacts on Jupiter in ’94. Knowing that comets do hit planets IN OUR TIME, it is not a far stretch to consider that comets and meteors may also be capable of hitting the Earth NEAR our time. It doesn’t make it TRUE, but it makes it worthy of consideration, if it can only be looked at without blatant bias in either direction.

The one thing that seems to be true is that IF something actually happened, then diligent research should at some point begin to turn up evidence of it. Rick Firestone didn’t set out to find an impact event; that makes the find even more appealing (though still not necessarily true). Serendipity in science does occur and does help the scientists with open minds and their ears to the ground to run up against – and RECOGNIZE – the something unexpected that might be “out there.”  One might argue that “might be” is not science, but one need only point at such astronomical things as dark matter, dark energy and the Oort cloud – none of which has had to find anything as prosaic as an impact site.  And the Higgs-Boson is now thought to have been found, but it was a long time in the “might be” stage.

Acceptance of this impact will, when it comes (apparently not “if it comes”), change the lay of the land. If comets or meteors can smack us within the time of man, only a hiccup in the past, it shines light on not only astronomy and geology, but also on our history, as the indigenous accounts suggest. If we’ve gotten whacked hard enough to kill the mammoths in both hemispheres, sabre-toothed tigers and Clovis man, we need to ask for one thing if human history is the long, contnuous, slow ascent we’ve accepted as real for many decades now.

Could man’s development have been set back at some point like the YDB?  Just looking at Clovis man and his bifacials, which Dennis Stanford asserts was mile ahead of developments elsewhere: Where would man be today if those Clovis people had not been wiped out? It took what? 2,000 or 3,000 years to come back up to that level – nearly half the history of man since Poverty Point and Sumeria. If we had those few thousands of years under our belts in science and technology, how much farther might we be along our developmental path? Give high-tech a 2,000 year head start and what kind of computers would we have by now? How good would our space program be? How long ago would The Pill have been developed, allowing man for the first time to control his numbers – but perhaps before we numbered 7 billion? How far along would medicine be? Energy technology? Transportation?

Literally – would we by now have reached another star system? Don’t laugh. We are only 110 years into the sky at all. Most thought us getting there was impossible, until some unknowns saw a path by which to get off the ground. And now we all take flying 7 miles up for granted, as we also take the magic of electricity as a given – using both everyday as easily as we breathe or walk (sometimes more so).

If there are sentients on other planets, one wonders if they, too, have meteors and comets roaming around their home worlds that occasionally send THEM back to the Stone Age. Or, perhaps, did they get lucky and have a true void around them, so that their development didn’t get shut down (once, twice,several times?). And if so, how far would they have developed by being given an uninterrupted path of development for, say, 500,000 years? And how far back into the earlier billions of years of the universe might they have begun (or ended)? Will we be that lucky some day, to not get a mega-Tunguska, on a steeper trajectory?

Our NEO searches can only look so far into the future, with something like 1400 possible “threateners” out there nearby, not counting the comets that come from farther out in the solar system. We now have – apparently – just under 13 millennia of development since Clovis man and his tools were wiped out, setting us back those 2,000 or 3,000 years. We certainly can’t see if any NEO is going to T-Bone us in 5,000 years or 13,000 years. Are we destined to do it all over again, in 1,000, 5,000 or 20,000 years? We all know that it is just a matter of chance whether we get hit by a 1-km object or a 3-km one or a series of 100 meter ones. And each of those portends setting us back maybe 10 years, maybe 200, maybe 20,000.

The lesson of the Younger Dryas impact event is the full breadth of our history and our civilization. Not to mention the adjusting of our scientific foundation.  Much may need to be re-written.


  1. I like the impact hypothesis. I wish there was some more conclusive evidence of it – a crater or some large fragments. Of course, a large comet/meteor can mostly vaporize and leave almost no evidence.

    My idea has been that it vaporized or struck in North America and sent a large volume of water high into the atmosphere over the Arctic. This came down as ice and snow that dramatically changed the albedo of the upper latitudes of the Northern hemisphere and dumped a large volume of fresh water into the North Atlantic altering ocean currents. This combination led to the climate change. It might have also caused rain and deluges at the lower latitudes. This could also account for the numerous “myths” relating to floods found in many cultures.

  2. The diverse data supporting the impact hypothesis is lining up better than any geological story I’ve ever seen (I’m a geologist). It is rock solid in my opinion. The best overview that I have found is this (Allan West)
    although the audio/video quality leaves something to be desired.
    Nice Site

    • Sandy –

      You probably nkowabout it, since you’ve been keeping up with the YDB, but just in case you haven’t drop in over at and browse around a bit.

    • Sandy – Sorry I have been out of contact a while. I actually lost my laptop at the TSA security coming out of the international terminal at Houston and it took a long time to get my laptop back. (TSA did have it in their lost and found.) And then I’ve not gotten to this blog really until today. I DO recall reading your comment, but don’t remember if I replied.

      I am very pleased that you, as a geologist, see the solidity of the evidence for the YDIH.

      If you’d like to comment specifically about the YDIH evidence, please, go right ahead.

      I myself put evidence into a hierarchy, with forensic type evidence at the top, just as they do in courts of law. By forensic, I mean properly sampled, lab-tested evidence with quantified results. The sampling of the evidence MUST also be solid – as in: at the right level and selected to show peaks and valleys in the material concentrations versus at other depths. That last is in regards to the YDIH skeptic Surovell, who sampled very poorly and outside of spelled-out protocols, back in 2009. He selected too thick of a sample, which watered down the concentrations, and he also didn’t even sample in the right GPS location. So, his lab results (done well enough by Daulton, with what he was given to work with) were absurd and wrong – and he never corrected it after he was called out on his mistakes. Bad sampling means GIGO.

      “…better than any geological story I’ve seen” – When reading journal papers in my personal research on various topics in the last few years, I’ve been amazed at how POOR the logic and quality of evidence is, in several disciplines. Almost in all cases the researchers only present evidence in support of their conclusions, while they don’t present anything at all that might argue against. To me, that is a sign of bad scholarship. In addition, the evidence is so often so WEAK, not thorough enough to warrant such conclusions. In addition, they cherry-pick supporting papers, while ignoring papers that don’t agree.

      In one small area of research, the Libyan Desert Glass (LDG), there are now 5 competing explanations. No two of them can both be right, so there are at least four wrong explanations. If any of the five research groups acknowledged that theirs is but one possible current explanation, that would be okay, but I don’t see any of them saying anything but, “Mine is right”. BAD SCHOLARSHIP. YDIH skeptic Boslough, in particular, poses a Goldilocks solution for the LDG – that a bolide coming in (at 45° as I recall) miraculously airburst at an elevation that was “just right” to provide the results shown in his pretty cartoon models. It doesn’t seem to occur to him how Godlilocks his height is. The object would be traveling at a velocity of at least 2-5 km/sec, and would have been within 20 feet of his height for mere microseconds – and THAT is exactly when it decided to disintegrate as an airburst. POPPYCOCK.

      Yes, there are all sorts of non-rock-solid peer-reviewed journal papers on all sorts of things geological, archaeological, and astronomical. I have trouble finding ones that don’t have big holes in them. At least IMHO… 🙂

      • I kind of missed your earlier email, Scott mentioned something to me that I half logged.

        Anyway, with regards to the Younger Dryas – I am a tourist, but was impressed with the diversity of geological, geochemical and biological evidence for a major event at 12.9 Ka. I am not qualified to comment directly on the interpretation, some of the direct cause and effect parts of the story will no doubt change and I am not close enough to gauge the quality of the sampling protocols. But there seems to be a wide ranging diversity of unusual data clustering around a specific time event with at least some criteria repeatable over a wide area. From the material I have viewed, I don’€™t think it will be possible to completely dismiss the notion of a catastrophic event, perhaps global, at that time.

        I find myself dismissive of many of the assumptions and trite arguments forwarded by a great deal of the archaeological and anthropological establishment. I now believe this is partly an artifact of trying to get an education through youtube. It also seems to be a concerted effort by a powerful but narrow minded crowd of classicists to keep a leaky boat from sinking. I like to think the invasion of the classical arts of archaeology and anthropology by geologists and biologists etc will help to restore balance. I also think that people who are inclined to think like me are hard to find on the internet. We may need a new internet, since the one we have is becoming a tool of an increasingly subversive political class.

        I welcome anything you would like to draw my attention to.



      • Sandy – I haven’t gone back to see what you might have caught or missed, but in case you didn’t catch it, on the subject of “at the same time” I would point you to this CosmicTusk post –

        Coincidental peaks of what are normally proxies for establishing impacts are certainly not something to ignore. The skeptics have 1.) dismissed the normal proxies and gone to great lengths to argue other causes, not impacts; 2.) tried to argue that the peaks are not in the correct time frame.

        This last paper (the link) should go a long way toward putting such doubts on the time frame and the peaks to rest.

        But now, what does that even MEAN? some people will ask. So WHAT if they are at the same time? Well, when that “same time” does happen to be right when the biological evidence also places the Younger Dryas (which has been a puzzler for those biologists for decades now), and when it also happens to coincide pretty damned well with the extinctions of the megafauna and of CLovis Man himself, THEN with those ADDITIONAL peaks, we have a doozy of a situation, Houston…

      • Sandy –

        One thing in all of this…

        The YDIH is s serious threat to uniformitarianism, as the latter is presently practiced. Yes, they will need to circle the wagons, metaphorically speaking. One should expect no less. But, even being a die-hard neo-catastrophist, I’d caution that neo-castrophism doesn’t supplant uniformtarianism – it supplements it.

        In a comment on CT, I proposed an analogy, that of a human body and a bullet fired into the body. The bullet is a catastrophe for the body, and normal medical treatments for illnesses or non-catastrophic conditions will not suffice. Such is an impact to the body of the Earth, if of sufficient size and/or velocity.

        Make no doubt about it, uniformitarianism IS the normal state of affairs – geologically, climatologically, and biologically. There is no doubt about it. Catastrophism, whether neo or not, is not an all-the-time thing. It is sporadic, and sporadic in the extreme. It’s just that when a catastrophe like an impact DOES occur, well, dammit, applying uniformitarianism princiles to the scenario simply doesn’t work and cannot work. And after the catastrophe, things go back to normal and the uniformitarianism can take its rightful place again.

        • No threat, uniformitarianism punctuated by catastrophism seems natural, I don’t think anybody really regards these as all or nothing notions.


  3. Thank you for the link above. I am new to the 12.9 Ka event having just stumbled upon it. I am more impressed with the clustering of diverse data at 12.9 than the specifics of ‘impact hypothesis’. If I stick with it, I may have a more pointed opinion. In any case something catastrophic seems impossible to dismiss and catastrophism is something that generally appeals to me outside of hyperbolic biblical context. The general presentation of data and the symposium it was presented at I regard as good reasons to take it seriously but no reason to accept without criticism. The K-T boundary impact theory (dinosaur extinction) was of interest to many early on, but though widely accepted as plausible or probable, it cannot present as tight a clustering of specific data as the 12.9 sites seem to be delivering and is still fighting it out with or finding a place beside catastrophic volcanic theories.

  4. Sandy; Welcome aboard! It’s always nice to have another POV to turn to for info and advice. What is your line of geology? Just curious. Please feel free to kick us in our arses if needed, and please don’t take it personal if we disagree with your POV. We all just love to get along.

  5. “We all just love to get along.”

    Actually “WE” don’t.

    When I stumbled into Clube and Napiers work, I found a lot of different impact evens being ellided.

    I now find a lot of people who are new to the field of impact events proclaiming themselves “experts”, when they really have no idea of scaling laws, nor of impact mechanics. Period.

    There are also various charlatans at work, modifying their earlier spiritual cons and related delusional histories to include asteroid and comet impact.

    For the best current public account of the Holocene Start Impact Events, see:

    • Ed, your comment was approved, but you will start out here on probation.

      Your comments attacking people and denigrating them will not be tolerated. So shut the fuck up with the insults.

      Things like, “…people who are new to the field of impact events proclaiming themselves “experts””

      Or, “…they really have no idea of scaling laws, nor of impact mechanics.”

      Or, “…various charlatans at work. . . their earlier spiritual cons and related delusional histories…”

      Or, “‘We all just love to get along.’ Actually “WE” don’t.”

      In your sea level comments on your first link, you say this, about those who don’t bow down and worship your journalism:

      As far as my qualification to do this go, many manned Mars flight enthusiasts will tell you I am an idiot; and they are joinered [sic] in this opinion by 2012 fatalists, different “psychics”, theosophist archaeologists, followers of Velioksy [sic] and Cayce, and Drs. Morrion [sic] [Dave Morison, Director of NASA] and his “friends”, and believers in “Nemesis”, and various employees and associates of the Ohio Historical Society, who will also throw in that I am a liar and a fraud.

      (You seem to have left out the Mars folks.)

      So, folks, you all now have this list of Ed’s enemies – who he has alienated and insulted for upwards of a decade now. Ed, we here can put up with you for only a short while, if you insist on trying to make enemies for yourself HERE< too. Those on that list are YOUR enemies, even when YOU aren't THEIR enemy. You evidently like to think that the world revolves around you. HERE that is not true. Nothing revolves around anybody. We ARE just rying to get along and trying to discuss things in a friendly manner.

      Friendly. As in no insults. As in no attacks.

      So, you are welcome here with this proviso:

      BE NICE

      Cross the line into insults or attacks, and you WILL be blocked.

      You are on a short leash.

      (Dennis, if you are out there: NO PROVOKING ED, EITHER.)

      For those who don’t know Ed, he is a former journalist, turned alternate researcher, and who covered NASA, and who thinks that his journalistic efforts make him an expert. He has no working experience in any of the sciences, which includes applied science, aka engineering. Ed writes. That is what he does, in between insulting people.

      At one point I was pretty much the only friend he had on the planet, but he insulted me a few times too many.

      Ed. no one here claims that they are anything except what they did/do in their daytime jobs – PLUS WHAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE. Some of us had jobs that required that we USE scientific principles, and that experience qualifies us as rational, logic thinkers. Those who did, and do, are at least one step up above journalists.

      Everyone’s thoughts here are to be given due consideration, and PLEASE disagree in a civilized manner.

      At the same time, you DO do a good job of researching, and I respect that research. That is the ONLY reason you are not already blocked. You crossed the line at least four times already.

      I am not as tolerant of abuse of people as George at CosmicTusk was.

      Just watch it, buster.

  6. Ed –

    One passage in your first link:
    “One may notice that the first sea level rise occurs well before 10,800 or so BCE:”
    Well yes, that would be the case, since there were two interstadials between the LGM (ended about 22kya) and the YD onset at 12.8kya. You know them. They are called the Bolling and the Allerod. In between them was the very brief Older Dryas.

    There was a LOT of melting of ice sheets during those interstadials. Melting = sea level rise.

    In fact, the YD was almost certainly a period of increased ice build-up. Certainly a bit of a hiatus in the melting and melt run-off.

  7. (At the first link Ed gave…)

    In the comment below Ed’s first sea level comment/post, it discusses what the author suggests might be an ice impact site in Scotland.

    David Ollen may have found evidence of a massive impact crater just south of Kitscoty, but it doesn’t look anything like what you might expect.

    Instead of a huge hole in the ground, it’s a circular plateau about 30 kilometres in diameter, with an inner circle about 12 kilometres in diameter.

    If it is evidence of an impact, it may have happened during the last ice age, when the area around Lloydminster was under a huge mass of ice.
    . . .
    With this evaporation, a great weight was lifted from the land and, combined with the heavy ice still around the impact’s circumference, caused the land under the hole in the ice to rise 50 to 100 feet.

    “When you have three-quarters of a mile of ice over an area there’s a lot of pressure there,” he said. “That ice is heavy. When you all of a sudden bang it and evaporate half of it, it takes the pressure off but the pressure is still on around it.

    “If all of a sudden you knock the ice out of the spot, it’s going to pop up.”

    I would wonder why only THAT area would have had 3/4 of a mile of ice on it. Wouldn’t the rest of the region also have had the same amount of ice (more or less)? And wouldn’t that OTHER land have raised up, also, after the 3/4 mile of ice melted? Even if it happened later, it still would have had glacial rebound, too, wouldn’t it? Why would the OTHER land around it not have lifted the same amount?

    While this sounds like a good idea, the devil is in the details.


    It opens with, “I have pointed out that a major rise in sea levels and a major change in climate occurred well before the dates for what is widely and mistakenly called the Younger Dryas Boundary impact event.”

    This seems to have it all backward. The YD was a 1300-year COLD period. There should NOT be any rise in sea levels at ALL during a 1300-year cold period. There should be a slowing or reversal of sea level rise.

    Which is what the graphs in his earlier link show – at

    The discharges SLOW DOWN or stop at the YD 12.8kya time.

  9. Ed –

    I DO tentatively agree that there may have been earlier impacts in the late Pleistocene. Perhaps even more than one earlier one. The spike you point out is not the only one pre-YD. The D-O events are basically artifacts that are in the Greenland ice cores. The spikes – both UP and DOWN – occured from about 50kya to the YD, and then they stopped after the end of the YD, leaving our bountiful Holocene climate – without which civilization could have never happened.

  10. Steve; I believe that when the proposed impact in Scotland happened a hole in the 3/4 mile ice was created and ground inside that rebounded. And when the rest of the ice sheet melted off the entire area rebounded but the previous rise came up with it. That’s my take on it.

  11. Jim –

    Yeah, that scenario occurred to me, too, but I did not think that the plateau would come up with the rest of the area. If the plateau was independent enough to rise WITHOUT the surrounding region, then it seems that it should have been independent enough to NOT rise when the rest rose later on. In any event, I’d put the onus of proof on those making the claim.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

    If they can’t, then IMHO the idea is just speculative. (I KNOW – many of my own are only that and no more, for the time being, and I freely admit that.) I am not putting theirs down, just pointing out reasons that it might not be correct. A devil’s advocate, perhaps?

  12. Steve; A rise of 50-100′ in rebound is virtually nothing compared to the rest of the land base rebound. The Canadian Shield was estimated to have rebounded 2300′ at epicenter. So a 2 mi. wide hole opens in the ice and some rebounding pops up. A 2 mi. hole in the ice sheet is nothing, just a pin prick. So once the rest of Scotland is ice free and the landmass rebounds that little section goes right along with it + 50′ – 100′ extra.

  13. Oh, BTW, I don’t accept the isostasy thing as valid. I might be wrong, of course. But that whole idea assumes that the crust is a tympani-type layer that is free to move up and down – and that when the ice is on it, it is free to be pushed down.

    But I do not think that that last is a correct assumption. The crust is – and MUST BE – supported by the aesthenosphere and the mantle and the core. They assume that a mere 2 km of ice (density <1.0) is enough load to push the mantle and ITS PRESSURE downward. Either they make that assumption or they make the equally bad assumption that the ice squeezes the crust thinner. The one I've heard them make is that the ice "weighs down the crust".

    NO. It assumes there is no foundational strength UNDER the crust, and that is a false assumption. The foundation of the crust is not the crust itself, but the mantle under it – which is under great pressure.

    Background: There is a principle in physics/mechanical/structural engineering called "resisting force". A building DEPENDS upon that, in order to stand. A foundation MUST support the entire weight of the building AT ALL POINTS, or the building will fail. Designing a foundation means studying the resisting force that the soil is capable of. That is why soil stest are run. Based on those tests, the foundation must have FOOTINGS with areas sufficient to spread the load and not have the soil yield (move downward/sink).

    When there is something UNDER the crust, THAT resisting force capability has to be considered in the equations. In this case it is the mantle and its pressure. As we can see from volcanoes, the mantle certainly has a lot of pressure – enough to squeeze steam and keep it as liquid water, and then some.

    Since the mantle is supporting the crust, the crust will not sink unless the weight above exceeds the total force over the area exerted by the mantle pressure. This I do not think they take into consideration. IMHO, isostasy is another oversimplification that is popularized, but that has not taken all factors into consideration.

  14. Once again you have out flanked me!! But in the end, I WILL win once!!!

  15. Jim – It is never my aim to outflank you. I don’t play those games – unless someone shows himself to be a cabrón. – an a**hole. Like Bos….LOL Or like Ed can do sometimes. You are a LONG way from that.

    I don’t know if I am right about isostasy, but for now I am skeptical about it… VERY

    • Steve; Just jacking around being a smart A–. I know you don’t disagree just to disagree, You have facts and personal impressions to back your stance BUT you’re always open to discussion and other hair brained ideas.

  16. Hi Steve –

    I am going to tell you a few more things you do not want to hear.

    First off, I have friends, and had friends.
    Your demands to know who they are and were concerns information that I do not wish to share with you. “We” know who “we’ are, and that is all you need to know.

    I also have enemies. They usually decide to become enemies either when I tell them things they do not want to hear or when they think it is safe to steal from me.

    So as far as ad hominem attacks go, they start them.
    That is because they generally mistake me for some kind of weakling.
    And then they get all upset at what happens next.

    For example – Walked Among Us Part 1.pdf Walked Among Us Part 2.pdf Walked Among Us Part 3.pdf

    Despite the theosophist claims over the last 100 years, we know that there were no recent crustal shifts. We know this from the geological records of paleo-magnetism.

    Despite your proposal, I’m very certain that the vitrification of the forts in Scotland were not caused by tangential impact. If that vitrification were the result of tangential impact, I myself would have brought it up years ago..

    Most of your conjectures about impact mechanics and entry processes, including bolides, already have been answered years ago on the meteorite list.
    Dr. Holsapple teaches an open class on impact mechanics at U. Washington which you may attend if you want to. No one I know really wants to waste their time trying to take you through bollide mechanics, as they feel it would be a waste of their time.

    Note that, Boslough’s models do not handle heat well.
    Morrison’s claims that comets are asteroids is rubbish.
    Morrison’s assertion that comets do not hit the Earth is rubbish.
    Morrison’s very early estimate of the impact hazard based on data from the Moon is rubbish.
    The datings of planetary surfaces using that faulty estimate are rubbish.
    Finally, the NASA center for NEO detection is JPL, and not NASA Ames, exactly as I reported years ago:


    • …I was at no point asking who your friends are. YOU laid out who your enemies are, of your own free will.

      …Yes, Ed, everybody attacks you first. You got attacked here, right? Wrong. It took you all of five sentences here to insult people. I suppose that by me pointing that out you called people “charlatans”, that that was me attacking you.

      …Theosophists – WHO in the world is talking about theosophists? Who CARES about what they say? We don’t.

      …My “proposal” about the vitrified hill forts in Scotland was a conjecture, not a proposal. I noticed that they tend to be aligned SW-NE, which suggests that they all might have a common cause. And I did NOT suggest any sort of impact. I suggested a low angle air burst, VERY similar to Dennis Cox’s melted cerros near the Mexican_USA border. I never said anything about impacts. Had they been impacts they would have been craters. And you know that I know that.

      …Somehow, because I am not afraid to discuss and think out loud, you have concluded that I think I am an expert on impacts. I’ve never said anything of the sort. I DO point out inconsistencies and points that I disagree with. The last I heard, this is a free country.

      …”Most of your conjectures about impact mechanics has been answered long ago.”? On the meteorite list? I dare say that they were almost certainly answered long before the meteorite list began, too. So, does that mean that the meteorite list people weren’t allowed to discuss the mechanics of impacts? Because NASA or someone else had already answered them? Of course not. They can discuss these things in THEIR time, and we can discuss them in OURS. What’s the problem? You don’t want anyone discussing things and educating themselves? Or do we have to get Ed Grondine’s permission first?

      …No one you know wants to take me through bolide mechanics? Like I asked anyone to? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a thing here called the internet, where we can learn at our own pace and don’t need to sit down and listen to someone OF YOUR CHOOSING for us.

      ..You posture as an impact expert, and Ed, you are nothing but an ex-journalist. Why would we need your input on anything? Especially when for each fact you mention about impacts, we have to listen to your non-stop crying that NASA and the world are not bowing to your superior knowledge?

      Look, I don’t want to listen to your drivel, over and over and over, your bellyaching about who done you wrong, and ESPECIALLY you mischaracterizing things I’ve said about impacts or air bursts, and showing that you didn’t even read what I actually said. I don’t need to defend my points to you, over and over and over.

      Consider yourself blocked here.

      This is exactly the kind of comments that are a total bore, and we don’t give a DAMN about what your take is on things – not when it comes with vitriol. We’d MUCH RATHER go to sources other than angry, lonely ex-journalists.

  17. I’m surprised Ed lasted as long as he did. He does have a reasonable knowledge base but just can’t leave his personal aspects out of it. Shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s