John L

One thing: if the initial impact is somewhere else, or if the impactor detonates in the atmosphere, the residue, which would have created all those other craters/bays, would have far less kinetic energy, or size, and thus make smaller secondary craters. Did you watch the NatGeo video, which showed how small the many secondary craters were? You really should watch it if you haven't yet. And there has been more than one major impactor event, because there are many examples of overlapping craters which are laid down over other, older ones. Also, if you rely completely on Wikipedia, which is a site where people contribute to it, you will also tend to get whatever they wish to contribute. The global warming fiasco is a classic case in point, and Wikipedia still has not gotten over it.

Correct! This is a whole lot more logical than some hypothetical 'oceanic currents', or 'gas pockets' theory, which are even harder to prove. This reminds me of the Permian Extinction event, and how the anti-celestial folks tend to write it off. To them it was caused by the massive Siberian Fault volcanic eruptions. Well, so what? Anyone, who looks at the Permian event has a pretty good idea where it occurred(Antarctica). And if one looks to the opposite side of the globe, one will find the Siberian area where all those volcanoes were set off. Now just what could have possibly caused it, if the impact crater was at the opposite side of the planet? Well, first of all, the planet has a thin crust, and shock waves tend to ripple outward in all directions. And where will all those ripples finally end up, all at once? If you say Siberia, YOU WIN!! And with all that shock striking all at once, does anyone think it just might cause the plates to open up and go haywire? The internal pressure would be enormous too. Nine of ten, or more, cataclysmic events are the result of celestial means, in one form or another.

I'm sorry, but theses are clearly impact sites. The odds of all of them being shaped the way they are, and tending to be patterned on like axis, is obviously not a random creation caused by 'terrestrial processes'. These are the result of 'celestial processes'. And what do these 'so called' terrestrial processes represent anyway: oceanic movement; underground release of hydrate gas pockets; or other unknown acts? These are all the result of one or more larger impacts from celestial events. If they aren't from an immediate, and larger, impact, they are obviously from an air burst, which threw out many smaller objects, impacting onto the planet's surface. I don't understand why so many people find it so difficult to conceive of the notion that we are being bombarded from space, on certainly an irregular basis. And there is even the possible conjecture that comets tend to be disturbed on a regular basis, either through movement up and down the galactic plane, or perhaps the presence of something like a brown dwarf that has an elongated orbit of our sun that may be every thirty to thirty-two million years. And these comets tend to move into the gravity well, where some of them wind up colliding with our planet, causing mass extinctions. I'm sorry, but this to me is as elemental as the nose on one's face. And until someone can prove that these 'bays' are caused by something terrestrial, beyond reasonable doubt, I'm going to go with the Celestial Impact cause. But let me go over one of the things mentioned in Wikipedia you want to follow: And keep in mind that just because Wikipedia said it doesn't make it the gospel. Their issue with the global warming debate proves this already. But take this part: As for the part about there being no meteorite fragments, perhaps these have not been found yet. Perhaps a good deal of this could have been from some of all that ice sheets being blown away due to the initial impact. Once ice melts, it leaves only water behind. And perhaps an air burst could have accomplished this, leaving little remains in concentration. The Tunguska event in Siberia is less than one hundred years old, and the remains there are scanty because it was an air detonation. And the Wikipedia insert also claims that the bays are too shallow for them to have been impact craters. That assumes there is no such thing as weathering by a planet that constantly weathers everything else on the surface. And within an area where there is abundant rainfall, weathering would be extensive to say the least. I just don't understand the lack of reason when it comes to impacts and impactors.

Thank you Moderation Section: you have managed to use your heavy hand by forcing the 'so called' separation of religion and science, with the stroke of a movement. By attempting to totally separate religion from science, done 'our way', you have taken a thread and managed to create derision amongst the participants. Like it or no, there is a connection between religion and science, even though there are many fundies, or atheists, who will try to make it all one sided. But the simple truth is that there really is a logical, and fair, accommodation between all. Now you have forced the issue, based upon your own prejudices. Instead of gently nudging the members into keeping the science first and foremost, by using reason first, threats second, and action LAST, you are showing everyone else that you are just as dogmatic as the very ones you are attempting to control. This is my last post on this ruined thread. Congratulations! PS: I am saving this post, just in case you decide to use your Statist approach to dissent. I'll then start a complaint thread about my thoughts.

My guess is that the white marks are the result of someone studying the photo. Note the same marks on irrigation squares not associated with the circles. Here is what unmarked photos look like. As for the age of the bays, clearly there are multiple strikes associated with them. many of the bays are overlapping, and some are inside others, so they were almost certainly the result of more than one Impactor strike. If you study the picture above closely, you can see older circles, and newer circles that are overlapping older ones. By using the oval shape of the bays, it is easy to orient it to the direction from whence the objects originated. And the majority of the latest ones appear to originate from a common source, the so called Saginaw site. Also, the latest ones are much more recent than perhaps others, indicating a strike at the trailing end of the more recent Wisconson(Wurm) stage of the Pleistocene. But in answer to JohnB's question about an impactor on the ice sheet, it's size, impression on the geology, and spread of debris, the answer would be the size and kinetic energy of the inpactor. Let's say the Saginaw site, or any other site on or above the area, are within the time frame of the Pleistocens(2.5 million years bp), then the odds are at least 90% that they occurred over the ice sheets that extended southward. Only during an interglacial, such as today's Holocene, would there be no ice present at the impactor site. This means the impactor's kinetic energy was sufficient to instantly melt the ice sheet, and continue driving into the landscape beneath it. That's a lot of kinetic energy being transfered from the object. And that would tend to throw out a lot of debris, mostly in the direction the object was traveling. That is why the bays are being used to back track to the source, by studying the shape of the craters. Now, if there are so many overlapping craters, under such a huge number of recent ones, then this is clear evidence the planet is being hit by Impactors on a regular basis, geologically. It has been several decades since Shoemaker turned things upside down with the revelation of impactors and their impact(pardon the pun) on the globe, and clearly its significance has not become fully appreciated within the scientific community even yet. I'm not a geologist(I'm a physical anthropologist), and I can see how impactors are clearly so important to how this planet has been affected. As I have stated before in another thread, we are living in one celestial shooting gallery, and assume we are not going to occasionally get a black eye, is sheer hubris on our part.

Perhaps the Carolina Bays issue deserves another separate thread. There is a great deal of recent data I need to research as well. Its been a couple of years since I followed the trails. But I mentioned that because of the Saginaw Bay crater, above where the ice sheet reached its southerly limits, could possibly be the origin of the Carolina bays. And too, I am not privy to its age either. I would like to know this as well, because if it did strike the ice sheet, it would indicate something of the size and speed of the Impactor.

You are saying that these slightly less than perfectly round circles, are the result of underwater currents? And just how did these underwater currents manage to create them? And a huge number of these occur above the ancient 'fall line'. So how did they get under water, especially so recently? But this is slightly off track other than the fact that the possible cause may have been the result of the Saginaw Impact, which would have been above the ice sheet boundary of the last recent round of the Pleistocene. Which may have something to do with the other John's question about leaving evidence of an impactor within the geologic record.

Could you be more specific here? Mass and speed will make a difference. For example asteroids, which are usually remnants of former comets, tend to be smaller, and much slower. If a comet enters our atmosphere and slams into a large ice sheet, the kinetic energy is going to be far greater. But comets tend to calve upon entry and there are usually many potential impactors. Also, have you had a chance to study the subject of Carolina Bays? George Howard has a wealth of information on this, right here. Whether this is directly linked to the 'so called' Clovis Comet, is still unknown, but clearly the evidence of multiple strikes is self-evident. Its a shame that the most vocal proponent on the Clovis Comet appears to have taken some very unscientific shortcuts, to the point where it has tainted the concept. Personally I believe this event to have occurred, causing the sudden Younger Dryas cooling. But then again, I'm one of those Impactor fanatics. Anyway, just what do you mean by 'city killer': a fifty metre object, or perhaps something much bigger? Because its just possible the Impactor actually exploded in the atmosphere and resulted in multiple strikes, which may have had more damaging consequences. Anyway, check out the images of the Carolina Bays to get a better idea of the shooting gallery we live in. Carolina Bays Images

Challenge it any way you wish. That's your privilege. And as for rises in temperature, perhaps a little thing called 'rebound' may be the cause. And to use all those spikes up and down as an explanation of Milankovich cycles........................... there are not that many parts to the cycles. I suppose you are going to write Younger Dryas off to the Milankovich cycles too?

Perhaps they really were informed, by some thing, or some one, to head that way? I'm not sure if you are steering toward the 'religious' or 'antireligious' POV, so I don't know what you want.

I agree that it is not universally accepted as that date. However, if the Jupiter/Saturn link is true, and it makes a very persuasive point, then the date will be pretty solid, even if the majority of people are unaware of it. And that still does not detract from the premises of Yeshua/Jesus being born then and there. The time is just changed, that's all.

I'm always amazed(?) at the lack of knowledge, or interest, in the importance of Impactors on the planet throughout history. In fact, if there is any one thing that has played such a profound role in history, it has to be that one thing. And there are so many that no one impact can be considered without looking at the total picture. It should be obvious that earth is moving smack dab in the middle of one huge shooting gallery, and we just dodged a bullet earlier this month in the form of 2005 YU55, which is 400 metres in diametre. All one has to do is look closely at the Lake Vostok temperature chart data, and notice all the sudden drop off of temperatures throughout the last few glaciations events. Those sudden drops are most likely not due to anything But major Impactor events, which pushed the planet off the climatic cliff. And that is why Eugene Shoemaker is one of my favorite scientists, who battled the establishment dogma, when he claimed that all the craters on the lunar landscape were not the product of vulcanization, but rather Impactor craters. And at the time he was laughed at, until we actually went to the moon and brought back evidence to back him up. Think Impactors first, when you think of major geological, or climatic, change. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Hasn't this been pretty much established for some time now? I recall one or two Science/History Channel programs that discussed the theory. And it makes sense too. Of course that doesn't detract from the possibility that it may have had a purpose . But what are you driving at here? You are just throwing out something and not giving your own hypothesis.

It's just basically a chart, with units of a substance on one side, and the change in effect on the other. Again using CO2, as the amount of CO2 is introduced into the environment, the saturation curve moves upward. But as the CO2 increases, the effect begins to level off, to the point where the more CO2 introduced, the more horizontal the curve becomes. Eventually, the more CO2 introduced, the curve stops moving upward, being level. As I have stated, there is a name for this type of effect. I just cannot remember it anymore, and would like to find it again. And it doesn't have to be CO2: it can be practically any gas.

No, there is a scientific phrase for it. I just can't remember it, and it's driving me crazy.

No, there is a specific name for this. The more one introduces a substance into a mix, the less the influence as that amount increases. That is exactly why the view that increased CO2 into the atmosphere will keep increasing heat into the mix. I just want to know the scientific name of this principle.

There is a scientific title for the principle, in chemistry, that the more of a substance one adds to any given volume, the less it influences the volume statically as the saturation point increases. A good example is the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. At a certain point, 1a amount will result in say 1b change in the equation. But double the amount to 2a, and the result will not be 2b, but something less. Keep adding CO2, and the effect will continue to decrease to the point where any further addition will result in no noticeable change. What is the name of this process? I just cannot remember it, sorry. And thanks. John

I am currently going back through the entire five seasons of Babylon 5. It is my favorite SiFi series, and unlike the other series, it actually made it through it's designed five seasons. That is significant. Also, the one thing that makes Science Fiction successful is its ability to make human interaction a focal point of the stories. B5 does this very well, the Liberty vs Conformity being the primary one. I'm noticing a lot of things I misses when I originally watched the series.

Tsunamis are just another reason why I tend to stay away from the beach. I spent four years in Charleston, at the Citadel, and when I graduated, I had had enough salt, sand, and stench, to last me a lifetime. I'm a mountains sort of person now, and a long time resident of East Tennessee. But I have been following this topic for a few years now, and agree that while the prospect of the side of an island falling suddenly into the ocean is very small, it does happen. Just one detailed look at the Hawaiian Islands and the small size of the older islands, along with the undersea floor 'runout' patterns leading away from them, is enough to give one pause. Not to mention the huge fissure running the length of a side of the Big Island, which is slowly trying to allow gravity to do its thing. And certainly the threat of Impactors are Real. With well over two thirds of the planet's surface covered in oceans, it is logical to expect an Impactor to generate terrible devastation along the shorelines. I'll take the mountains any time, where the best gift is clean, fresh, aire.

Surprising enough, nobody has brought up the latest theory for the mass extinction of mega-fauna in North America at the end of the last ice age, and the cause for the Younger Dryas. What I am talking about is the latest evidence leading to the theory, which is still theory, that a comet Impactor exploded in the upper atmosphere, causing the end of Clovis culture, and a large portion of fauna on the North American Continent. In order to stimulate discussion on this interesting topic, I will post what I have recently written at Ai-Jane.org. I know that we all have our own idea as to what is vitally important to this planet and humans, but the thought of millions, even billions, of humans dying off immediately as a result of a large comet, or asteroid, leaves me very unsettled. In fact, this dwarfs the 'so called' threat of a warming planet, so much so that to be worried about the later, at the expense of the former, seems to be intellectual laziness 'par excellence' -------------------------------------------------------- For many years now, the mystery of the vanishing fauna in post Pleistocene North America, has stumped paleontologists. How did so many species suddenly disappear. And this ranges from the giant bison, ground sloth, dire bear, smilidon, North American horse, mammoth, and many others. Theories have ranged from viruses to human interaction, to haitat change. Yet none of them have really been carried the day, as all have been a real stretch of imagination. As a graduate student I have always believed that there had to be something other than invading humans responsible, because the diversity of extinctions and their suddenness just did not add up. Now there is a new theory out, and it does not rely upon any of the above causes. This one is celestial in nature, and is currently under close scrutiny. It's also a new theory, having just been raised in 2007, so it will be disputed for years to come. But it makes sense, just as mass extinctions in the past, have almost all been the result of celestial Impactors as well. As an anthropologist, I find this spellbinding, because the implications are Huge. The prospect of random Impactors, capable of causing such disruption, adds to the threat of cyclical Inpactors which can cause even more damage and extinction rates. In other words, the longer we continue to keep all of our eggs in one single basket, the greater the odds that we too will be made extinct by some Impactor in the future. For a more detailed and close examination of the theory, you can read more here: THE CLOVIS COMET Part I: Evidence for a Cosmic Collision 12,900 Years Ago About Comets vs Asteroids The thing that leaves me scratching my head is the frequency with which commentators, and even scientists use "asteroids" and "comets" so interchangably. There is a big difference, and an impact by one will not be akin to that of another. Usually, the 'so called' experts will tell everyone that the dinosaurs were killed off 65 million years ago, by a huge asteroid. But the odds of that are very small, and a comet is a 90% certainty. Comets streak around the solar system at two to three times the velocity of asteroids. This means that the kenetic energy of a comet is far greater, and the time from atmosphere to impact will be much less, even coming in at a 30 degree angle, which is what the dinosaur killer most likely entered the atmosphere. Also, comets are almost always much bigger than asteroids. Some of them are simply Huge, and if they were to Impact the earth, they would do far more damage than the 6 mile comet that struck 65 million years ago. But the theory here of an air burst leads me to think that this may have been an asteroid, or a very loose, and small comet. It's hard to tell, but I have not read about any evidence of iridium as of yet. Comets will give off more iridium debris, so we shall have to wait and see what the debris layer shows on this. But I am fairly certain that an Impactor is the reason for the mass extinction of certain fauna in North America . As a matter of fact, it is starting to look like ALL mass extinctions are the result of celestial intervention. This is why I am amazed with the Eco-Wackos's hysteria about something as benign as global warming, and totally oblivious to the REAL DANGER, which lies out in the Ort Cloud and Kuiper Belt. All it takes is for one of these Impactors to give us a personal visit, and we are Truely Screwed, Blued, and tatooed. Here are a couple more schollarly publications on the topic. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling Younger Dryas "black mats" and the Rancholabrean termination in North America, by C. Vance Haynes, Jr*

If you all REALLY want to know what the future is going to be like, all you have to do is just travel to SpaceWeather.com, and check out the sunspot activity, on a daily basis. Yesterday, there was a tiny spot, that did not even get numbered. Today? The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI Notice the date in the address window. Gentlemen, and ladies :wink: , we are still currently at the trailing end of Sunspot Cycle 23, which is long overdue to have been over,.........but it isn't. And the reason why it isn't is because there is no 'ginned-up' activity on the sun. The sun is Dead, with regard to activity. And it is FACT that a tranquil sun, means that the plant Earth, will become a cooler Earth. This period of tranquility has been going on since 2005, and it usually takes around 4-7 years for the change, ever so slightly, to be felt here on our planet. Forget the current hot spell, but look at the rest of the last few months, and it is aparent that we are not heating up, but rather the opposite. If solar scientists are correct, and Sunspot Cycle 23 continues on for another year, the cooling period will accelerate. Yet, this is exactly what has been forecast. This graph shows a history of the last two complete 178.8 year solar cycles, and also projects outward the next one, and as you can see, Sunspot Cycle 24 is going to be a Real Dud, activity wise. In fact, it will be almost an absense of a sunspot activity. The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI In other words, forget about AGW, it's the Sun that is the REAL diciding factor, and although it may not be all that much, it is enough to make a real difference in global temperatures. Personally, I believe we are headed for another little ice age by 2030, like another Dalton Minimum. Then where will Algore be? As for the term "Climate Change", so what? Climate is ALWAYS changing, and if you think things are bad with a warm planet(which I contend is much better), just wait until a cooler climate wrecks havoc on the agriculture belts of the planet. Global cooling is the ABSOLUTE WORST thing that could happen to we humans. Trust me on this one. :wink: What we should REALLY be worried about are Impactors from space. Why aren't you AGW True Believers all vexed about the threat of Asteroids and especially Comets? If you take the time and just study the latest Clovis Comet theory, you will see that a comet does not have to actually strike the earth to cause mass extinctions, and totall disruption. And we are constantly struck, with a major strike occuring about every thousand years. THERE is where you guys should be worried. And speaking of Clovis Comet, that's why I'm Really here..............................

Thanks guys! This is truely a fascinating subject! Perhaps in the near future we can accumulate more data and work concerning this development. If you come up on any more information, please feel free to add it to the thread. The more we add to it, the more it stays at the top of the Section, and the more people become aware of just how rich the solar system Really is, and how much potential awaits us out there. Again, thanks! John

I would think that the answer would be based upon where you chose to look. within the inner system, the comet would be easier, as it is constantly venting lighter gases, such methine, amonia, and others that have a lower boiling point than water. Long period comets would be harder to spot than short period comets, since the Kuiper belt is not as far out as the Ort Cloud. I would be curious to see the answer from a more learned person. Perhaps someone can provide links as well?

What is so frustrating is that the subject has very important implicatations for the future. And Dr Frank, et all, are concentrating on their theory concerning earth, which is natural. Their professional name is on the line here. However, with the passage of time, and the disclosure of huge amounts of water on the moon, and high resolution pictures showing water on the rims of mar's major craters, along with newly discovered runoff erosion, there is no question that water is practically everywhere. Now, this is great news for us when it is time to explore space. We will have a natural sourse of oxygen for breathing, and water for "you know what" all water can do for us. And it is also a perfect fuel sourse. Since it appears to be practically everywhere, we are really in luck. However, I keep coming back to the question of just how much is actually floating around the solar system. Also, I would imagine that in molecular form, it too would be diluted, but still plentiful in space. Consequently, a ship traveling from earth to , let's say mars, could set up a huge scoop in front of the craft, and scoop up loose molecules of water, hydrogen, and others as well. This could keep the craft in good supply. However, I worry about what would happen should the craft come into contact with one of these small comets, even if it is no bigger than a VW. This could not only destroy the scoop, but also the space craft. Should there be anything close to the what Dr Frank is referring to, we could be in for serious trouble, as the danger could be very great. Does anyone else agree?