http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
   For complete access to all the files of this collection
        see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
  ==========================================================


[From c.leroy ellenberger Tue Apr 13 00:29:41 2010
[Rec: [forwarded] Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT)]
[cleaned up]

> From: Ted Bunch 
> Subject: Re: NEO News (01/02/09) More on Recent Comet Showers
> To: c.leroy
> Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:28 PM

Some items to consider:

1) I have attached 4 of the 13 2008 AGU Mtg. abstracts that dealt with
various aspects of the YD impact event.  A portion of these abstracts are
based on peer review and a Hell of lot of work by the core team of nine.
For example, lonsdaleite (hexagonal diamond) that can only form under
extreme shock, has been identified from YDB sites as well as high
temperature soot (used as evidence in the K/T model for global fires).

2) Leroy, you brought up a timely issue, namely Greenland. Because an
editor of a prestigious journal attended the AGU meeting and was so
impressed with our presentations, he invited us to submit an in depth
article on our recent findings with regard to impact and Northern
Hemisphere fire evidence in the Greenland ice sheet. The publication (if
accepted) will precede a NOVA special on the subject that will air around
April. We have evidence of the impact debris (lonsdaleite and cubic
diamonds) and evidence of the North American fires in the Greenland ice.
We will report more than one billion nanodiamonds per cc in the YD-age ice
with only Greenland ice background amounts above and below the YD layer.

3) Other manuscripts that deal with advanced physical evidence, aerial
impact computer simulations, climatology, extinctions, human cultural
changes, hyperballistic experiments, and other disciplines are in
progress. The SCIENCE brevia is a light introduction for the heavies to
come. We are in about the same situation that the Alvarez team was in the
mid 80s with respect to the K/T event, when they had good evidence for an
impact, but no crater and a lot of detractors. We do not advocate a crater
into the ground, there is no evidence for this. An impact or impacts from
the largest comet pieces into the Laurentide ice sheet is a better option
and one with which we have supportive evidence. The smaller comet pieces
may have detonated in the atmosphere, much like a Tunguska event, but with
much greater kinetic energy.
 
If we consider a breakup comet, for example Schwassmann-Wachmann, where
there are many pieces from hundreds of meters to meters in diameter with a
field diameter of ~ 2000 km a field length of 4000km. This scenario could
create the 'perfect storm'. The biggest pieces could have sufficient
kinetic energy to make sizeable craters in the Laurentide ice sheet,
whereas the smaller pieces, widespread over North America, detonated in
the atmosphere and did not reach the ground. However, the hot jets from
these detonations may have 'torched the ground' and created firestorms. We
have evidence (soot, charcoal, admixed with carbon spherules and diamonds)
of such firestorms from California through Canada to Europe, even on the
Isle of Wight -- all date precisely at 12900 BP.
 
Tunguska has no crater, yet it is accepted as an impact. There are many
similarities between Tunguska and our impact hypothesis. No crater, but
intense and directional short lived fires (flash heating). None of the
typical shock criteria are found, although magnetic spherules, Ir-rich
fraction, carbon melt spherules and nanodiamonds are found at Tunguska as
well as in the Younger Dryas boundary. One would not expect a crater or
shocked minerals in air burst detonations. Computer simulations (Mark
Boslough, Sandia Labs) suggest that if the gaseous jet from an aerial
detonation hits the ground, the upper few mm may be melted/vaporized as
well as flash heating of all vegetation.
 
I will not go into detail with the paleontological observations, only to
say that Vance Haynes (a most highly respected geochronologist) and his
team have studied 70 sites in North America over the last 30 years and
have found that no Clovis points, mammoth, sloth, dire wolf, etc. remains
are found above the YDB-black mat layers. In fact, the excavation teams
had to scrape-off the black 'gunk' from the remains of these extinct
megafauna, i. e., the animals appear to have been immediately covered by
these layers. Haynes published a summary of his work at these sites in a
paper in PNAS last year.
 
The multitude of carbon melt spherules in the YDB sites contain trillions
of nanodiamonds, mostly n-diamonds that are not necessarily made by shock,
more likely from melting of carbonaceous matter in the intense fires
followed by rapid quenching. The cubic and hexagonal diamonds could have
been made via impact into the ice sheet, though some may be ET and
survived the impact environment.

For every hex diamond, there are 100 cubics and 1000 n-diamonds. There is
also the question of where the p-diamonds and i carbon came from, but that
is another story. For now, it is sufficient to point out that both of
these phases are found only in the YDB and KTB boundaries. FYI, we have
looked at carbon spherules from 8 modern fire storms and found no
nanodiamonds.  Translation, the YDB event fires were hotter with a much
higher quenching rate.

Consider, high T flash heating on the ground from an aerial burst at 3000
to 10000 deg C (estimates from Boslough and Crawford and Sorkin) and
subsequent under pressure back waves.
 
I must add that we have found cubic, hexagonal, and n-diamonds in the K-T,
heretofore unknown. So, what was good for the K-T impact goose, must also
be good for the YD impact gander. The K-T event has the same problem as
the YD, what was the carbon/carbonaceous reservoir for diamond
transformation. Probably not in the impactor, but most likely from
dissociated C from the massive carbonates that are present in the geologic
column in the Yucatan and under a large portion of the Laurentide ice
sheet.
 
Some reputable impact scientists agree that an impact event occurred
without knowing much of the information that I have provided here. The
questions in debate are how and where.
 
[statistics]
 
Thank you both for your interest and patience with this mini treatise .
Comments are welcome--

Ted