Mammoth found, killed with buckshot

Note that skeptigirl said nothing of any bison, but responded only to Claus's first question about the mammoth.

Note that I mention the bison later.

Claus then introduces the comment about the bison as "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." Which has nothing to do with a dead mammoth or how meteorite fragments in a mammoth's tusk would kill a mammoth.

I didn't claim it had.

Well, considering you asked how a mammoth could be killed by asteroid chunks hitting its tusk, with skeptigirl responding that it could have something to do not so much with the asteroid chunks in the tusk but the blast that might well have accompanied it...

No, no, no. I asked skeptigirl how she could possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth" in the quote I posted in post #38.

Not to mention the question itself was pretty bloody ridiculous. Why couldn't the mammoth have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone? Who knows? It's not such a complexing question to wonder how the mammoth died.

Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Now...this was a follow-up question later introduced by Claus which was not present when skeptigirl first responded. He then accuses her of getting confused by the bison and the mammoth - when it was he who slipped in the quote "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Insane just doesn't cover it.

More dishonest tactics. More lies. And worse yet, over what? No woo here, no bad science. Just an interesting discussion.

:rolleyes: Seriously Claus, this as trolling as behaviour gets.

But I'm sure you'll evade with another lie. I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Oh, I see.

I'm insane, dishonest, trolling and lying, because I manage to "slip in" a quote about the bison.

Yes, that was really devious of me.

So, do you seriously think that 'blast' insinuates the air is being propelled with the same force over the same distance as the asteroid shrapnel?

Of course not.
 
What is it about "blast" you don't get?

That is not a direct answer to the question, but merely has the reader fill in the answer by insinuation. Please answer the question(s) in a direct manner, so that there are no misunderstandings regarding your position:

Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking?
 
In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:



How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?



How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?
Don't know, wasn't there. Ask Dick Cheney's buddy - he got hit by the fragments but wasn't killed by the blast. Good enough for puny humans, good enough for big, hairy, bison.:D
 
How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?

From the reports of the 1917 Halifax Harbour Explosion: "A portion of Mont-Blanc's anchor shaft, weighing 517 kilograms (1140 lb) was thrown 3.78 kilometres (2.35 mi) west of the blast on the far side of the Northwest Arm, while a gun barrel landed in Dartmouth, over 5.5 kilometers (3.5 mi) east, near Albro Lake."

You see Claus, it is quite easy for fragments to travel farther than the blast.

As for the ridiculous question about how shrapnel in a tusk can kill a mammoth, it isn't hard to imagine that if there was shrapnel in the tusk then more would have been in the body but seeing as we only have the tusk to examine we wouldn't really know, would we? We also wouldn't know if the mammoth survived, as the article says, because we only have the tusk and even if the mammoth survived, tusks don't heal.

There is a report in this month's Discover magazine about this. Number 75 of their Top 100 Stories for 2007. It suggests that this blast accounts for the extinction of the Clovis culture of North America, the animals they hunted. and much of the plant life.

There is evidence of this "shrapnel" from 50 sites in North America along with charcoal to indicate that vast forest fires destroyed what the blast and shrapnel didn't.

Indications are that the impact would have been around the Great Lakes which were covered by the Laurentide Ice Sheet at the time which may account for the lack of a crater. Or it may have exploded before impacting the Earth which would also account for it.

As Douglas Kennett is quoted as saying, "Think about it - people would have seen it coming. This was a bad day."
 
Thank you athon and gayak. But as athon predicted, Claus again evades actually joining the discussion in favor of whatever satisfaction he derives from his twisted posts.

For whatever reason, Claus, even when we show you exactly why your posts and questions were unclear and consist of some twisted thought process only you can follow, you just can't see that it is your means of communicating that is the problem. It is your failure to actually type out the thoughts in your head. Somehow, we are supposed to know what those thoughts are.

You said, "Explain please" apparently intending to ask a completely different question while quoting the question I had answered. How in bloody he!! was anyone supposed to know what you meant?

And in fact, I said as much. I said, "Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about."

And I posted it after shadron also couldn't figure out what you were asking. Only then did you clarify you were asking a completely new question. How do you suppose anyone knew you meant a completely different question when all you wrote was, "Explain please"?

But I already tried to tell you this.
Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.

You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?
Not only do my answers have ZERO to do with mistaking a bison for a mammoth, but I clearly explained why no one here knew what you meant by "Explain please".

You think, "the quote clearly said" your question. No it did not clearly say what you meant. To those of us who have normal thought processes, we didn't hear the voices in your head say the rest of the question which would have looked something like this:

The injuries in the mammoth tusks weren't fatal. The blast from the meteorite could have been fatal. The bison's injuries were not fatal. So then, here's the question, Claus, that would have made your thought processes apparent to the rest of us: So why wouldn't the blast have also killed the bison?

Maybe when people tell you they don't understand your question, you might consider simply explaining what you meant instead of acting like the back end of a horse.

Stop with your nonsensical rationalizations for why we all should have understood your question. NO ONE UNDERSTOOD IT. That's a clue, Claus, you don't communicate, then you fault people for not reading your mind. Last I checked, this whole organization is partially about debunking the claim anyone can read minds. Posting foolish claims we are all stupid for not reading the secret thoughts behind your two word quips doesn't win you any gotcha points. All it does is wreck an otherwise interesting discussion.
 
And now you are doing the same with NoZed Avenger.

Just imagine how much less time you'd spend typing on your keyboard if you actually posted normal exchanges with people in the first place. All that typing to justify incomplete quips and thoughts, seems to defeat the purpose.
 
From the reports of the 1917 Halifax Harbour Explosion: "A portion of Mont-Blanc's anchor shaft, weighing 517 kilograms (1140 lb) was thrown 3.78 kilometres (2.35 mi) west of the blast on the far side of the Northwest Arm, while a gun barrel landed in Dartmouth, over 5.5 kilometers (3.5 mi) east, near Albro Lake."

You see Claus, it is quite easy for fragments to travel farther than the blast.

The blast from Krakatoa:

The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice [2], and generated the loudest sound historically reported: the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia approx. 1,930 miles (3,110 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius approx. 3,000 miles (5,000 km).

The explosions were so violent that they were heard 2,200 miles (3,500 km) away in Australia and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, 4,800 km away; the sound of Krakatoa's destruction is believed to be the loudest sound in recorded history, reaching levels of 180 dBSPL 100 miles (160 km) away.[4]

And yet, fragments did not go as far as the blast:

Ash was propelled to a height of 50 miles (80 km).

As for the ridiculous question about how shrapnel in a tusk can kill a mammoth, it isn't hard to imagine that if there was shrapnel in the tusk then more would have been in the body but seeing as we only have the tusk to examine we wouldn't really know, would we? We also wouldn't know if the mammoth survived, as the article says, because we only have the tusk and even if the mammoth survived, tusks don't heal.

That's precisely why the question isn't ridiculous: Why assume that the impact was the cause of death?

Thank you athon and gayak. But as athon predicted, Claus again evades actually joining the discussion in favor of whatever satisfaction he derives from his twisted posts.

For whatever reason, Claus, even when we show you exactly why your posts and questions were unclear and consist of some twisted thought process only you can follow, you just can't see that it is your means of communicating that is the problem. It is your failure to actually type out the thoughts in your head. Somehow, we are supposed to know what those thoughts are.

You said, "Explain please" apparently intending to ask a completely different question while quoting the question I had answered. How in bloody he!! was anyone supposed to know what you meant?

And in fact, I said as much. I said, "Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about."

And I posted it after shadron also couldn't figure out what you were asking. Only then did you clarify you were asking a completely new question. How do you suppose anyone knew you meant a completely different question when all you wrote was, "Explain please"?

But I already tried to tell you this. Not only do my answers have ZERO to do with mistaking a bison for a mammoth, but I clearly explained why no one here knew what you meant by "Explain please".

You think, "the quote clearly said" your question. No it did not clearly say what you meant. To those of us who have normal thought processes, we didn't hear the voices in your head say the rest of the question which would have looked something like this:

You are very busy talking around the issue. Please answer this very simple question:

How can you possibly have missed "bison" in the quote I provided?

The injuries in the mammoth tusks weren't fatal.

How do you know that?

The blast from the meteorite could have been fatal. The bison's injuries were not fatal. So then, here's the question, Claus, that would have made your thought processes apparent to the rest of us: So why wouldn't the blast have also killed the bison?

Because the bison lived on?
 
Note that I mention the bison later.

That's right. You mention it. Not skeptigirl.

I didn't claim it had.

By bringing up the bison quote when asking skeptigirl about the mammoth, you do. Or is this another Claus word game?

No, no, no. I asked skeptigirl how she could possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth" in the quote I posted in post #38.

She didn't. You did. You mentioned the bison directly after asking about the mammoth. You then cryptically ask 'explain please', assuming in your own mind she knows that you're insinuating the bison...when nobody has any clue as to that notion.

You're either really daft, really bad at communicating or being dishonest. Take your pick. My money is on the third option...but feel free to correct me.

Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Where did you consider it as an obvious option? More Claus word games.

Oh, I see.

I'm insane, dishonest, trolling and lying, because I manage to "slip in" a quote about the bison.

Umm...actually, yeah.

Of course not.

Then what prompted you to ask the question?

Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?

Athon
 
That's right. You mention it. Not skeptigirl.

Yeah.

By bringing up the bison quote when asking skeptigirl about the mammoth, you do. Or is this another Claus word game?

No, I don't.

She didn't. You did. You mentioned the bison directly after asking about the mammoth. You then cryptically ask 'explain please', assuming in your own mind she knows that you're insinuating the bison...when nobody has any clue as to that notion.

When I specifically mention the bison, it is because I want to talk about the bison.

I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth, when I talk about the bison. But maybe I am just playing "word games".

You're either really daft, really bad at communicating or being dishonest. Take your pick. My money is on the third option...but feel free to correct me.

It seems you leave no option for me being neither. I just have to have sinister motives.

Where did you consider it as an obvious option? More Claus word games.

Answer the question, please: Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Umm...actually, yeah.

I "manage" to "slip in" a quote?

What kind of criticism is that?

Then what prompted you to ask the question?

Why do you automatically assume that I have to have sinister motives whenever I ask a question? I just asked a question!

Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?

Why don't you focus on the argument instead of the arguer?
 
And yet, fragments did not go as far as the blast:

Did you read that article Claus? They certainly did. You are also mistaking the distance the sound travelled for the destructive area of the blast.

That's precisely why the question isn't ridiculous: Why assume that the impact was the cause of death?

Obviously you didn't read the article. Here is what it said in regard to the death of the mammoths: "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Notice, the article didn't mention whether the mammoths lived or not. Notice how it said that they went looking for the tusks at a sale in Arizona. The tusks had been collected in alaska and the bison skull in Siberia.
 
For anyone who's ever seen Carl Reiner's All of Me, with Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin, it's pretty clear what's going on here. Claus has, through some Tibetan ritual, absorbed the soul of Interesting Ian. Now that both beings inhabit the body that has access to the CFLarsen login, you get the strangest things happening.
 
When I specifically mention the bison, it is because I want to talk about the bison.

I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth, when I talk about the bison. But maybe I am just playing "word games".

The lies are amazing. Seriously amazing. 'I have no idea why you think I would talk about the mammoth.' Christ.

Go back and look at post number 59. As I showed, you asked skeptigirl about the mammoth...and then summon a quote about the bison. Nobody has any idea why, but there you go. You do, and think you're as clear as day. You're on your own on that one, though.

It seems you leave no option for me being neither. I just have to have sinister motives.

CFL mode/ I didn't say you had sinister motives. Point out where I said you have sinister motives./CFL mode :rolleyes:

Answer the question, please: Where did I reject the idea that the mammoth could have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone?

Where did I suggest you rejected it?

Why do you automatically assume that I have to have sinister motives whenever I ask a question? I just asked a question!

Again; do you honestly not see the impact your questions have? Maybe it's not dishonest motives - maybe you really are a poor communicator who can't predict the impact his choice of words will have. In which case I gave you more credence than you ever deserved.

Why don't you focus on the argument instead of the arguer?

:rolleyes: I'm discussing the behaviour of the arguer in relevance to the topic. It's perfectly legit. If not, report the post and have it moved.

Now, do you have an answer to 'Do you honestly, 100%, not get how the way you ask questions make you seem like you're out to pick a fight?'

Athon
 
Last edited:
I went back and checked, I understand what CF was asking about. It isn't even that hard to figure out.
 
I went back and checked, I understand what CF was asking about. It isn't even that hard to figure out.

Working backwards, we can piece it together. I don't think anybody is left scratching their heads any more.

The point is, imagine the conversation verbalised. Claus comes across as arrogant and rude, not to mention assumptive that everybody gets what he is on about (which few do at first, due to his brusque demeanour). Eventually it is apparent he is asking something fairly simple which could have been phrased in a way that didn't come across as belligerant. He then stands back and says 'I was just asking a question'.

I have students just like it. They often make a remark, pushing for a fight, then claim innocence of their tone by asking what precisely they did wrong.

It's pathetic. Nice thread which had some interesting stuff, only to have a troll waltz in and act like a twat.

I think Claus has taken his super-skeptic persona so far he feels everything deserves to be debunked.

Athon
 
I predict someone will start a semantic argument over the definition of the word "blast". I predict this thread will stretch to 18 pages. You can paypal me my $million.
 

Back
Top Bottom