[meteorite-list] gloating, part 2

E.P. Grondine epgrondine at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 7 09:06:08 EST 2018

Paul. I am not satisfied with your apology to Hibbens.yet.He deserves better from you.I

Message: 6Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul <bristolia at yahoo.com>
Subject: [meteorite-list] Alaskan Muck (Mucks), Tsunamis,    and Hibben
    Revisited (Long)
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Message-ID: <561951.62760.qm at web36205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Mr. Grondine wrote;

"Thanks for the references to the post war research,
but I think you overstate your case."

Anyone, who takes the time and trouble to read through what 
is called above " post war research", instead of mindlessly 
dismissing it as "baffling BS" will find that what you "think" 
is absolutely wrong. These publications provide overwhelming 
evidence and arguments that show that I have not overstated 
the case for the so-called Alaskan being composed largely of 
eolian sediment, called "loess", and colluvial and other 
deposits reworked from it and the complete lack of either any 
megatsunami deposits or layers composed entirely of impact 

You continued:

"Surely no archeological remains from 2 to 3 million
years ago are in the deposits which I refered to, and
which Hibbens examined.

Given that Hibben (1943) studied "?muck deposits exposed in the 
grounds of the Fairbanks Exploration Company in the vicinity of 
Fairbanks, Alaska.", it is quite clear that he did not limit his 
examination to only those Alaskan "muck deposits", which contained
archaeology. Some of the peat layers (paleosols), which are 
mentioned in Hibben (1943) likely are tens to hundreds of thousands 
of years old. The youngest known "forest of trees", which occurs 
buried in the deposits, which Hibben studied, is the Eva Forest Bed. 
This bed has been dated as being about125,000 years old (Pewe et al. 
1997).Thus, you are quite wrong about Hibben having only examined 
so-called "Alaskan muck deposits" containing archaeology. Lacking 
any sort of radiometric dating to guide him, Hibben (1943) wrongly 
assumed that all of the so-called "muck deposits", which he was 
studying, are young enough to contain archaeology. 


Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.

Pewe, T. L., and others, 1997, Eva Interglaciation Forest
Bed, Unglaciated East-Central Alaska: Global Warming
125,000 Years Ago. Geological Society of America Special
Paper no. 319, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

You continued:

"The strata that I refered to did have archaeological
remains. They were also the source for the mega-fauna
ivory that was used commonly in the United States for
the manufacture of billiard balls and piano keys at
the turn of the last century."

Your distinction between Alaskan surficial strata containing 
archaeological deposits and those that do not contain them 
completely is a complete figment of your imagination. The
parts of the Engineering and Fairbanks loesses and Ready 
Bullion Formation, which contain archaeological deposits, 
are identical in texture, sedimentary structures, pedogenic 
(soil) structures, cyrogenic structures, stratigraphic layering, 
composition and other physical characteristics to the 
underlying and older parts of these formations, which lack 
archaeological deposits. If a person reads the papers, which 
I provided citations for in my last post, they will find that
there is a complete lack of any significant scientific evidence, 
which demonstrates that your distinction between the surficial 
strata containing archaeology and older strata, which lack 
them, has any scientific basis. These citations, all of which I 
have either read at one time or the other, can be found at:


In fact, if person takes the time to look at what has been published
about the archaeological geology of cultural deposits found in these
deposits as reported in the peered-reviewed literature and Cultural 
Resource Management reports, he or she will find that I am not at
all overstating the case to conclude that there is a complete 
absence of any definite textural, stratigraphic, compositional, or 
sedimentological evidence for any of the archaeology-bearing 
deposits being of impact origin. Instead, a person find in these
publications an abundance of data and observations, which 
repeatedly demonstrates that these surficial deposits consist of 
eolian deposits, called loess, which have been modified by
colluvial, pedogenic, and other processes. One of these 
publications is:

Esdale, J. A., Le Blanc, R. J., Cinq-Mars, J., 2001, Periglacial geoarchaeology at the Dog Creek
site, Northern Yukon.
Geoarchaeology. vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 151 ? 176

This article provides a perfect example of the colluvial deposits 
and loess, which have been disturbed by solifluction, frost heave, 
and cryoturbation, which comprise the deposits, which you and 
other claim to be the result of the imaginary catastrophe of choice.

Also, in 1978, archaeologists studied the location of a site along the
southern shore of Chinitna Bay between Coffin Creek and Sea Otter
Point, where Hibben (1943) claimed to have found a Paleo-Indian 
point in his "muck deposits? (Myers 1980). Using his photographs, 
they were able to relocate his site. Instead of any tsunami deposits, 
they found ?...marine muds and salt marsh deposits which are capped
by a layer of peat and, in some locations, by colluvial sediments.? 
Within these sediments they found ?one or more woody peats or 
paleosols...?, of which one was the ?humus stratum?, from which 
Hibben (1943) reported to have found cultural material. They found 
that the layer of ?muck?, which was reported by Hibben (1943), at
this site, likely consists of a stratum of oxidized marine muds and
salt marsh deposits. In situ wood samples from a blue-grey clay, 
which underlay Hibben?s cultural stratum, yielded two C-14 dates; 
1. a date of 375+/-120 radiocarbon years: 1575 A.D. (GX-5655) and
2. a date of 300 +/-130 radiocarbon years: 1650 A.D. (GX-5656)
(Myer 1980). Neither the early man occupation, mammoth remains,
nor any Pleistocene sediments capable of containing them were found
where Hibben (1943) stated that he found them. Also, Hibben (1943)
was wildly wrong about the deposits exposed at Chinitna Bay being
**older** than the "muck deposits" near Fairbanks , Alaska. In this 
and, very likely many other cases, Hibben grossly misinterpreted 
both the age and origin of his Alaskan "muck deposits" and 
exhibited a vivid imagination in what he has written about them.

References Cited:

Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in Alaska.
American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.

Myers, T. P., Current research. American Antiquity. vol. 45, 
no. 1, pp. 182-199.

You continued:

Why these mega-fauna all chose to die at the same 
time is an interesting question."

This is a very fascinating question. However, abrupt disappearance 
of megafauna have occurred during the Pleistocene at different times, 
separated by tens of thousands of years on different continents. The
abrupt extinction, which occurred at the end of the last glacial stage
is not the unique event, which you and other catastrophists claim it
to be. It is simply impossible for a single extraterrestrial impact to 
have caused multiple Pleistocene extinction events. For an idea of
the complex nature of the Pleistocene extinctions, a person can 

Barnosky, A. D., Koch, P. L., Feranec, R. S., Wing, S. L., Shabel,
A. B., 2004, Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions 
on the Continents. Science. vol. 306, pp. 70-75.

Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G., and  Lister, 
A. M., 2004, Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in 
giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature, vol 431, pp. 684-689.

In addition, there were two periods of terminal Pleistcoene 
megafauna extinctions in North America as noted in
Elias (1999) and Stafford et al. (2005) and based upon 140 AMS 
radiocarbon dates from protein extracted from bones of 
Pleistocene megafauna collected from sites from all over North 
America. concerning the research of Stafford and others, Elias 
(1999) stated:

"It now appears that the major megafaunal extinction 
event took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event 
included the extinction of camels, horses, giant sloths, 
Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal 
mammals that did not survive beyond 11,400 14C yr 
B.P., with the exception of the proboscideans. 
Mammoths and mastodons persisted beyond 
11,400 yr B.P. Stafford et al. have dated the extinction 
of North American mammoth and mastodon to 
10,900-10,850 yr B.P. So it now appears that there 
were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event 
took less than 100 years."

Also, the dating of dung, bones, and other tissue from late
Quaternary sloths, shows that not all of them "chose to die at the
same time".  Steadman et al. (2005) stated:

" Radiocarbon dates directly on dung, bones, or other 
tissue of extinct sloths place their ?last appearance? 
datum at ≈11,000 radiocarbon years before present 
(yr BP) or slightly less in North America, ≈10,500 yr 
BP in South America, and ≈4,400 yr BP on West 
Indian islands."

This and other research certainly reveals that your statement, 
"the mega-fauna all chose to die at the same", grossly oversimplifies 
the  complexity of Pleistcoene extinctions. I seriously doubt that the
mega-fauna ?chose to die?, which sounds like they got together in
suicide pact, as the phrasing unintentionally suggests. :-) :-)

References Cited:

Elias, S. A., 1999, Quaternary Paleobiology Update Debate continues
over the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinction. The Quaternary
Times: Newsletter of the American Quaternary Association. vol. 29, 
no. 1, p. 3 

Stafford, Jr., T. W., Graham, R., Lundelius, R., Semken, H., 
McDonald, H., and Southon, J., 2005,14C-Chronostratigraphy of 
Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions in Relation to Human 
Presence in the New World. Clovis in the Southeast Conference, 
October 26-29, 2005, The College of Arts & Sciences, University
of South Carolina, Columbia South Carolina.

Steadman, D. W., Martin, P. S., MacPhee, R. D. E., Jull, A. J. T., McDonald,|H. G., Woods, C. A.,
Iturralde-Vinent, M., and Hodgins
G. W. L., 2005, Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths
on continents and islands. Proceedings of the National Academy 
of Science. vol. 102, no. 33, pp. 11763?11768.

You wrote:

"As far as depositional mechanisms goes, I do not believe 
that there has been any work done on these deposits since
the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a geological 

This is case of just because a person believes something to be 
true does not make it true. The depositional mechanisms of these 
Quaternary deposits in Alaska have been discussed in various 
publications since "the discovery of impact mega-tsunami as a 
geological process." They include Lagroix and Banerjee (2004, 
2006), Muhs et al. (2003), and Muhs and Budahn (2006).

Muhs and Budahn (2006), they did a very detail geochemical and 
sedimentological analysis of these Alaskan Quaternary deposits. 

Muhs and Budahn (2006) found:

"Major-element geochemistry shows that Alaskan loess 
also has been derived, at least in part, from sediments 
that have undergone one or more cycles of weathering 
and Na-plagioclase depletion (Fig. 5). Loess in Alaska, 
as elsewhere, appears to have a large component of 
particles that have undergone previous cycles of 
weathering and specifically Na-plagioclase depletion. 
Such particles could be derived from weathered soils, 
sedimentary rocks that have experienced a significant
degree of diagenetic alteration, highly altered 
metamorphic rocks, or some combination of these 


"Fairbanks-area loesses also show typical UCC (upper-
crustal) compositions on REE plots (Fig. 9). Samples at 
all depths in all sections show enriched LREE, negative 
Eu anomalies, and relatively flat HREE curves. The 
Alaskan loess REE trends are in agreement with those 
reported by investigators who have studied loess deposits 
from other regions (Taylor et al. 1983; Gallet et al. 1996, 
1998; Jahn et al. 2001).

They found the geochemical data to be indicative of wind-blown 
sediments derived from the floodplains of the in Tanana, Nenana, 
and Yukon rivers and typical of other known loess deposits.
There is nothing in their geochemical data, which is indicative
of any extraterrestrial component.

References Cited:

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2004, The regional and temporal 
significance of primary aeolian magnetic fabrics preserved in 
Alaskan loess. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. vol. 225, 
pp. 379? 395

Lagroix, F., and Banerjee, S. K., 2006, Discussion of "Geochemical 
evidence for the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska"
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1887-1890.

Muhs, D. R. and Budahn, J. R., 2007, Geochemical evidence for 
the origin of late Quaternary loess in central Alaska. vol. 43, no. 3, 
pp. 323-337.

Muhs, D. R., Ager, T. A., Bettis, E. A., III, McGeehin, J., Been, 
J. M., Beg?t, J. E., Pavich, M. J., Stafford, T. W., Jr., and 
Stevens, D. S. P., 2003, Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance
of late Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last 
interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska: Quaternary Science 
Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986.

Also a person can look at ?A Complex Origin for the Late Quaternary
Loess in Central Alaska by D. R. Muhs and J. R. Budahn at:

You continued:

"Hibben ascribed them to volcanic activity, and 
saw volcanic ash." 

The mindless manner in which you keep citing of "Saint Hibbens" 
as if he is the infallible source of all information about Pliocene 
and Quaternary deposits of Alaska just indicates to me the extent 
that you and other catastrophists are quite ignorant of any of 
what you call ?post war research?. This research clearly 
demonstrates that Hibben's observations and interpretations, as in
case of Chinitna Bay, about these sediments are so badly flawed, 
antiquated, and unreliable to the point they are quite useless in 
any discussion of the origin of these deposits. In addition to these
problems, there exists significant doubts about the basic integrity
of his research concerning both Sandia Cave and Alaskan 
early man sites. Some of these doubts are discussed in detail in 
"The Mystery of Sandia Cave" by Douglas Preston as published 
in the June 12, 1995 edition of the New Yorker Magazine. 
Anyone, who automatically assumes that Hibben is a credible 
and trustworthy authority needs to read this article.

Yes, there are thin volcanic ash beds ranging from Pliocene, through 
the Pleistocene, and into the Holocene in age, which occur these 
surficial Pliocene and Quaternary sediments. All they prove is that 
major volcanic eruptions, as is typical of the Aleutian arc, have 
occurred throughout the late Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene 
and 2.  that the deposits containing these thin ash beds accumulated episodically over the last
two to three millions years. The wide 
range of stratigraphically consistent dates that have obtained from 
these ash beds soundly demolishes any claim that these deposits, 
even the loess and collivial deposits containing archaeology, 
accumulated as the result of single catastrophic event. In addition,
the thinness of all of these ash beds demonstrate cataclysmic 
volcanic eruption had nothing to do with the formation of beds.

You continued:

"To my knowledge, they have never been examined 
for impactites; the recent work that was done on the
holocene start impacts was privately funded to the
tune of some $70,000.

I think that ALL of these studies will need to be
re-examined before the questions of depositional
mechanisms is considered settled."

As summarized in Muhs et al. (2003), the fact of the matter is 
that the depositional mechanisms that created the Pliocene and 
Quaternary deposits covering large areas of Alaska and Adjacent 
parts of Canada have been repeatedly examined in very fine detail 
a number of times and are extremely well known. There is more 
than enough data and observations to found in the published
literature to: 1. soundly demolish any possibility that they contain 
any megatsunami deposits and 2. demonstrate that they consist 
only of a mixture of loess and colluvium largely derived from 
loess. An re-examination of the depositional processes for these 
deposits is the equivalent of beating a horse that is not only dead, 
but has decomposed into a weathered pile of bones. However,
this is a free country. If you want to waste your life; pour your 
personal money down a rathole; and make a complete and utter 
fool of yourself by trying to duplicating 60 years and a couple 
million dollars worth of geological research, it is your problem 
not mine. 

Another is problem is that none of the numerous known examples 
of tsunami and megatsunami deposits remotely resemble any of
the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene deposits within the 
Fairbanks, Alaska region. However, that is another two to three 
page essay and a couple of dozen citations to add to this post.

Given the way loess accumulates, there could be widely scattered 
extraterrestrial / impact-related material to found in these deposits. 
However, like the volcanic ash beds found in it, this material will 
be completely unrelated to how these sediments accumulated. 
Examples of such material, which can be found in loess, is the
horizon of Australasian microtektites, which has been recognized
in loess sections in China (Li et al. 1993) and impactite-bearing 
horizons found in Argentine loesses. They would be more practical
and productive stuff to look for.

References Cited:

Li, C. L., Ouyang, Z. Y., Liu, T. S., An, Z. S., 1993. 
Microtektites and glassy microspherules in loess?their discoveries
and implications. Science in China B. vol. 36, pp. 1141?1152.

Muhs, D.R., and Bettis, E.A., III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol 
sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes: 
Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74

You wrote:

?Finally, you left Alain and Delair out of your 
list of cranks.?

I failed to mention their book because I did not want embarrass
you by associating you with such a laughably ignorant piece of
pseudoscholarship. The degree to which this book is functionally
illiterate in its understanding of Quaternary, planetary, and other
types of geology is shown by the manner in which it confuses 
Midwestern glacial tills with either megatsunami or volcanic 
deposits and argues that deep sea manganese nodules are the 
result of an extraterrestrial impact. This book consists of the type 
of very sloppy and careless thinking, which a person expects to 
see in the answers to essay questions in freshman level college 
courses, but not in a book, which pretends to be a serious piece 
of scholarly research. This book is one of the reasons that 
research concerning terminal Pleistocene catastrophes has 
acquired a significant ?giggle factor? among conventional 

Some web pages on manganese nodules:

Manganese nodules




You finely wrote:

?But then as the saying goes, if you can't win on 
points, baffle them with BS.?

That you have to dismiss 60 years of ?post war research?, which I
discussed in my post, out-of-hand as ?BS? just shows to me how 
completely lacking in either any evidence or arguments, outside 
of Hibben?s antiquated and discredited research, which you have
to support your ideas about there being any tsunami deposits in 
the so-called ?Alaskan muck?.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/private/meteorite-list/attachments/20180307/ebbb3302/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list