Mammoth found, killed with buckshot

[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.

Haha. I had another couple of words picked out that Claus would fight over. It's sad when it gets this predictable.

Sorry mate. No million for you.

Athon

 

[robinson]

Having watched the NatGeo special, as well as the material on Youtube from the same scientist, I understood a lot about this before the OP, which is very limited.
It is understandable, based on the first few post, that CF would ask questions. I tend to avoid tar pits in online discussions, but now that it seems to be over, the really cool part of this is where the cosmic buckshot came from.

They talked about this on the NatGeo special.

Now, a supernova may join the lineup. Firestone and West believe that debris from a supernova explosion coalesced into low-density, comet-like objects that wreaked havoc on the solar system long ago. One such comet may have hit North America 13,000 years ago, unleashing a cataclysmic event that killed off the vast majority of mammoths and many other large North American mammals. They found evidence of this impact layer at several archaeological sites throughout North America where Clovis hunting artifacts and human-butchered mammoths have been unearthed. It has long been established that human activity ceased at these sites about 13,000 years ago, which is roughly the same time that mammoths disappeared.

They also found evidence of the supernova explosion's initial shockwave: 34,000-year-old mammoth tusks that are peppered with tiny impact craters apparently produced by iron-rich grains traveling at an estimated 10,000 kilometers per second. These grains may have been emitted from a supernova that exploded roughly 7,000 years earlier and about 250 light years from Earth.

"Our research indicates that a 10-kilometer-wide comet, which may have been composed from the remnants of a supernova explosion, could have hit North America 13,000 years ago," says Firestone. "This event was preceded by an intense blast of iron-rich grains that impacted the planet roughly 34,000 years ago."

In support of the comet impact, Firestone and West found magnetic metal spherules in the sediment of nine 13,000-year-old Clovis sites in Michigan, Canada, Arizona, New Mexico and the Carolinas. Low-density carbon spherules, charcoal, and excess radioactivity were also found at these sites.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17893

 

[robinson]

It was the climate change, not the impact, that is believed to have led to the extinction of Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Wooly Rhinos, all kind of cool beasts, that all went extinct in the very recent past.

 

[qayak]

It was the climate change, not the impact, that is believed to have led to the extinction of Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Wooly Rhinos, all kind of cool beasts, that all went extinct in the very recent past.

The article I have says the climate change, along with the fires, which led to the extinctions, were a result of the impact.

 

[robinson]

Yes.

From the NatGeo show - A diverse group of geologist, chemist and cosmic impact experts have banded together, attempting to put together the evidence for a cosmic impact, that led to the extinction of the Mammoths. It is highly controversial, and they think a super nova caused both events, the 13,000 year old impact, which caused climate change, right as the ice age was ending, as well as another event 35,000 years earlier.

It alos wiped out the Clovis people in North America. It is complicated, complex, and involves all kinds of science and evidence from all over.

I've watched the show twice now, and it is difficult to type it out. Watching the special is pretty dang cool. I'm watching it again right now, as I type this.

 

[athon]

Cool. I'll need to look out for it. I don't suppose there's anything downloadable online?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't.

Then how can you possibly think I was asking you about the mammoth?

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.

Moving the goalposts: Now it has to be the destructive area of the blast.

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."

I am not questioning why the bison survived.

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.

Go back and look at post number 38.

I "manage" to "slip in" a quote? What kind of criticism is that?

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

None of the options leave me with other motives.

Where did I suggest you rejected it?

You called my question "pretty bloody ridiculous"?

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.

Instead of attributing all sorts of bad characteristics, try to focus on what I argue.

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.

Fascinating. You actually think a debater's behavior determines, at least to some degree, the validity of the argument.

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?'

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

Focus on the argument, not the arguer.

 

[Steve]

Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?

Ok, I have read this entire thread, including all of CFlarsen's off topic posturing, and I think I can now respond to this.

1. An object lodged in a mammoth's tusk (very likely) would not kill a mammoth.
2. No one posting in this thread has suggested that an object lodged in a mammoth's tusk did kill a mammoth.

Question for CFLarsen - Why did you ask this question?

 

[robinson]

Question for everyone interested in this topic.

Have you watched the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Press Conference?
Acapulco, Mexico, May 23, 2007
North American Comet Catastrophe 10,900 BC

I linked to it here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3246532#post3246532

This is the actual scientist involved, presenting evidence, including question and answer sessions, with a huge amount of information.

I keep thinking nobody here has, because the really interesting thing about this has little to do with Mammoths. If you watch the YouTube video, or the NatGeo special, this is obvious.

 

[robinson]

If, for some reason, you can't watch video on your computer, here is a paper to read.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.pdf
There is a bunch of stuff about this scattered all over the net. Not easy to find however.

[edit]

Aha! This site, which is poking holes int the theory, has a ton of references and links.
http://www.starburstfound.org/YDextinct/p1.html

 

[fuelair]

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.

Actually, I was mulling this over because of Claus using the sound wave movement as blast. My personal opinion is that the blast - as used in the discussion by non-Claus persons - consisted of the destructive components of the explosion other than visible particles of matter (not including the matter directly involved in carrying pressure waves) [i.e. heat radiated, pressure transmitted was the blast ; visible to very large particles/chunks the matter] That eliminates sound/pressure waves not sufficient to damage/kill bison or mammoths.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I have read this entire thread, including all of CFlarsen's off topic posturing, and I think I can now respond to this.

1. An object lodged in a mammoth's tusk (very likely) would not kill a mammoth.
2. No one posting in this thread has suggested that an object lodged in a mammoth's tusk did kill a mammoth.

Question for CFLarsen - Why did you ask this question?

Already explained:

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?

 

[Steve]

Already explained:

Ah, so now I see. A very poorly worded initial question was clarified by your second question. I would suggest that taking a little more time before posting to think out and clearly state your question(s) may result in considerably less misunderstanding (bickering) and more on-topic discussion.

 

[skepHick]

For anyone interested, the National Geographic Channel is re-running this episode again right now, 5:00 pm EST.


ETA: And if I see a mammoth with a tusk on a plain, I'll kill him.

 

[athon]

ETA: And if I see a mammoth with a tusk on a plain, I'll kill him.

Athon

 

[athon]

Ah, so now I see. A very poorly worded initial question was clarified by your second question. I would suggest that taking a little more time before posting to think out and clearly state your question(s) may result in considerably less misunderstanding (bickering) and more on-topic discussion.

Ah, but that's attacking the arguer, and not the argument.

Claus is getting worse in his old age, I swear.

Athon

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then how can you possibly think I was asking you about the mammoth?... Focus on the argument, not the arguer.

Well since you asked, and since you can't seem to figure out where you miscommunicated, let's look one more time then, shall we? Your actual questions are bolded.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?

Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments.

"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." [link to source]

Explain, please.

Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about. ....

Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.

...I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

You told shadron you were not asking why there was new bone growth, you were asking me why was there bone growth if the animal was killed. But we all know the bison wasn't killed and I certainly never said the bison was killed.

You have asked several times how I mixed up something I did not mix up.

Look at your posts Claus. You are asking me why the Bison had evidence of not being killed. But they weren't killed and no one ever said they were. You said, "Explain please" and "I asked you about the bison and bone growth".

Where in any of that miscommunication is there anything even remotely related to what your actual question was?

Stop with your insults about my supposedly not understanding your perfectly clear communication. Any more and I'll ask that those posts be tossed in the dungeon.

 

[CFLarsen]

Stop with your insults about my supposedly not understanding your perfectly clear communication. Any more and I'll ask that those posts be tossed in the dungeon.

Uh-oh! Schoolmar'm is mad! I'm so scared!

I'll repeat:

I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

 

[robinson]

I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.

They don't really know. This entire new theory is very controversial. We do know that cosmic material was embedded by very high velocities, in mammoth tusks and bison skulls. It seems to have happened more than once. 35,000 and 12,900 years ago. Clovis points also have the same material in them from 12,900 years ago. It is highly suspected that many animals were killed by the shockwave, the firestorm, and the high velocity material. But, there are far more mysteries than facts at this point.

We don't know if the Mammoths were alive or dead, because tusks don't grow over injuries. Bison skulls do, so they think the bison lived a while after the impact. As for the Clovis spear points, nobody knows if the Clovis were alive or dead at the time.

We do know that the Clovis people, as well as the Mammoths and a bunch of other species, all vanished soon after the suspected impact 12,900 years ago.

I strongly suggest you watch the videos on this, if you want to know more. It is very interesting, and long and complex. And I am not going to transcribe it because you are too lazy to watch.

 

[CFLarsen]

They don't really know. This entire new theory is very controversial. We do know that cosmic material was embedded by very high velocities, in mammoth tusks and bison skulls. It seems to have happened more than once. 35,000 and 12,900 years ago. Clovis points also have the same material in them from 12,900 years ago. It is highly suspected that many animals were killed by the shockwave, the firestorm, and the high velocity material. But, there are far more mysteries than facts at this point.

We don't know if the Mammoths were alive or dead, because tusks don't grow over injuries. Bison skulls do, so they think the bison lived a while after the impact. As for the Clovis spear points, nobody knows if the Clovis were alive or dead at the time.

We do know that the Clovis people, as well as the Mammoths and a bunch of other species, all vanished soon after the suspected impact 12,900 years ago.

They all went to the sale at K-Mart in Tucson, Arizona. And stayed.

I strongly suggest you watch the videos on this, if you want to know more. It is very interesting, and long and complex. And I am not going to transcribe it because you are too lazy to watch.

Pretty please?