Mammoth found, killed with buckshot

Big Les said:
If you read the article, they aren't actually suggesting that either animal was killed by this shower of meteorites, just that one was definitely alive at the time and for a while afterward because of post-injury tissue growth.
Click to expand...

I'm asking shadron.
 
CFLarsen said:
I'm asking shadron.
Click to expand...

Christ you can be a rude bastard, Claus. I'm not sure if you meant to come across that way...but you do.

Shadron made no such assertion - he was recalling what he thought the radio program said. There's no woo you need to defeat here, so no need to jump on Shadron's case. Big Les graciously explained to what the article says.

Athon
 
Big Les said:
If you read the article, they aren't actually suggesting that either animal was killed by this shower of meteorites, just that one was definitely alive at the time and for a while afterward because of post-injury tissue growth.
Click to expand...

CFLarsen said:
I'm asking shadron.
Click to expand...

How dare you speak to Claus when he has not addressed you directly, Big Les? ;)
 
Badger said:
I wonder about things like terminal velocity and shock waves.
Click to expand...
I feel the use of the term terminal velocity is a bit of a red herring. If an object is dropped from a height it will accelerate until it reaches the terminal velocity. If it has a greater starting velocity downwards it will slow until it reaches its terminal velocity (or hit a mammoths tusk). Think of firing buckshot downwards. It will travel well in excess of its terminal velocity.

BTW: Cool thread title, you should be in advertising.
 
Last edited:
athon said:
Christ you can be a rude bastard, Claus. I'm not sure if you meant to come across that way...but you do.

Shadron made no such assertion - he was recalling what he thought the radio program said. There's no woo you need to defeat here, so no need to jump on Shadron's case. Big Les graciously explained to what the article says.

Athon
Click to expand...

I am asking if the program said anything about how the mammoth got killed by the explosion, if the part of the asteroid was lodged in the tusk. Did the program explain how?

If you see that as being rude, perhaps you should start asking yourself if you aren't just a wee bit paranoid.
 
I just watched the National Geographic Explorer episode about this, even recorded it on DVR. It first aired Dec 11 2007 at 12 a.m. here in the States.

It is an hour long documentary, went through the years of research a group has been doing. There is evidence of an impact event 13,000 years ago, suspected of causing a climate change, and they found another impact 35,000 years ago as well.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ET/popup/200712122000.html
http://www.422.com/gallery/article/98/1

Interesting stuff.
 
CFLarsen said:
I'm asking shadron.
Click to expand...

...and Shadron is replying that I have no idea why it was worded that way in the report and in the news article (it was a 30 second article from the BBC's standard on-the-hour news) I heard, but it did say that that the Bison lived on, presumably because the skull bone, being live, grew over the wounds, while the tusk, being dead upon extrusion from the skull, didn't have the option of indicating the state of it's wearer after the event. It is possible they both lived afterwards. In the content of the article, there is just no way to know.

Last I heard, I don't run the BBC, nor direct the scientists who made the original report. If I did, I'd probably had them read the whole report :).
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
...and Shadron is replying that I have no idea why it was worded that way in the report and in the news article (it was a 30 second article from the BBC's standard on-the-hour news) I heard, but it did say that that the Bison lived on, presumably because the skull bone, being live, grew over the wounds, while the tusk, being dead upon extrusion from the skull, didn't have the option of indicating the state of it's wearer after the event. It is possible they both lived afterwards. In the content of the article, there is just no way to know.

Last I heard, I don't run the BBC, nor direct the scientists who made the original report. If I did, I'd probably had them read the whole report :).
Click to expand...

I would say that that's kind of crucial to know.

Sloppy reporters.
 
Good and sound reason to keep an eye in the sky and the technologies to avoid or minimize the effects of an impact.
 
Badger said:
Do you have a link to information you refer to about animals surviving the Tunguska event? I can't find anything even remotely proposing that.
Click to expand...
There were human eye-witnesses who were knocked down by the blast, but far enough away to have not been seriously harmed. I've seen them interviewed on one of the TV specials on the event.

So I'm just saying it would be unquestionably possible. The researchers, though, also note the mammoth tusks could have simply been exposed long after the animals died. But the bison lived on so that is a different story.

Here are some transcripts of the interviews, I can't vouch for the reliability of the web author but the transcripts are about right.
The Russians collected a number of accounts from eyewitnesses at the trading station, which was probably the closest permanent habitation. These included:

"I was sitting on the porch of the house at the trading station, looking north. Suddenly in the north...the sky was split in two, and high above the forest the whole northern part of the sky appeared covered with fire. I felt a great heat, as if my shirt had caught fire... At that moment there was a bang in the sky, and a mighty crash... I was thrown twenty feet from the porch and lost consciousness for a moment.... The crash was followed by a noise like stones falling from the sky, or guns firing. The earth trembled.... At the moment when the sky opened, a hot wind, as if from a cannon, blew past the huts from the north. It damaged the onion plants. Later, we found that many panes in the windows had been blown out and the iron hasp in the barn door had been broken."

A second witness said:

"I saw the sky in the north open to the ground and fire poured out. The fire was brighter than the sun. We were terrified, but the sky closed again and immediately afterward, bangs like gunshots were heard. We thought stones were falling... I ran with my head down and covered, because I was afraid stones may fall on it."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
I would say that that's kind of crucial to know.

Sloppy reporters.
Click to expand...
It appears several of you didn't look at the links I posted which went into considerably more detail than the BBC news report.

See posts 13, 14 & 15.
 
Last edited:
I started to post this last night about the YEC response to the mammoth program (not to the latest research but I'm sure we can expect more of the same) but my Internet connection crashed for some mysterious reason so I just went to bed.

You ask about the YEC reaction, Great “Mammoth Mystery” of End of Ice Age Extinctions by Catastrophic Climate Change Investigated by National Geographic Explorer but Doesn’t Consider Warmer Ocean Engine for Ice Age
They say the mammoths (just elephants) became extinct circa 10000 B.C., but mammoths were reported in the Black Sea region circa 2000 B.C., and mammoth bone tools are associated with Bronze Age sites there, so National Geographic missed the mark on this one. And remember, Bronze Age Atlantis (see Category Atlantis Revealed), Plato describing the plain of southern Spain, south of the Sierra Morena Mountains, said that many large animals lived there in the lush fruitful environment (much more rain during the Ice Age), among them elephants, and so too then in England, during the Ice Age, when Stonehenge and the other great megalithic complexes were being built in western Europe, below the snowline of the Ice Age icepacks.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Last edited:
It has been established that pygmy mammoths lived on Wrangel Island (in the Arctic Ocean) up to 2500BC.
 
skeptigirl said:
Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
Source
Click to expand...

Explain, please.

skeptigirl said:
It appears several of you didn't look at the links I posted which went into considerably more detail than the BBC news report.

See posts 13, 14 & 15.
Click to expand...

Which are about a meteor blast from 12,900-13,000 years ago. The OP is about a meteor blast from 35,000 years ago.
 
CFLarsen said:
"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
Click to expand...
Explain, please.
Click to expand...

Since I'm the one who placed the quote, I'll explain that bone in a living animal is living tissue. Bone cells continually arrange and rearrange the calcium salt crystals which make up the hard load-bearing structure of bone; they do that for injury, as in a broken bone, and in response to changing stress, as when the astronauts in extended weightlessness loose bone mass. Any injury that physically damages a bone is eventually repaired or "paved over" with new bone. My son has a screw in his elbow from a childhood accident; at twenty, surgery to remove the screw failed because it had been locked in by bone growth around it. In the photomicrograph that accompanies the quote (from Dr. Firestone of the Berkeley Livermore Labs) the "nugget" of metal has been encased with bone growth; compare to the photos of the tusk embedment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom