Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comet Theory Comes Crashing to Earth
Miller-McCune ^ | 5-14-2011 | Rex Dalton

Posted on 05/23/2011 5:43:19 PM PDT by Renfield

It seemed like such an elegant answer to an age-old mystery: the disappearance of what are arguably North America’s first people. A speeding comet nearly 13,000 years ago was the culprit, the theory goes, spraying ice and rocks across the continent, killing the Clovis people and the mammoths they fed on, and plunging the region into a deep chill. The idea so captivated the public that three movies describing the catastrophe were produced.

But now, four years after the purportedly supportive evidence was reported, a host of scientific authorities systematically have made the case that the comet theory is “bogus.” Researchers from multiple scientific fields are calling the theory one of the most misguided ideas in the history of modern archaeology, which begs for an independent review so an accurate record is reflected in the literature.

“It is an impossible scenario,” says Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., where he taps the world’s fastest computers for nuclear bomb experiments to study such impacts. His computations show the debris from such a comet couldn’t cover the proposed impact field. In March, a “requiem” for the theory even was published by a group that included leading specialists from archaeology to botany.

Yet, the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world.

The primary authors of the theory are an unusual mix: James Kennett, a virtual father of marine geology from the University of California, Santa Barbara; Richard Firestone, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California; and Allen West, an unknown academic from the mining industry who lives in Dewey, Ariz.

“We are under a lot of duress,” said Kennett. “It has been quite painful.” So much so, that team members call their critics’ work “biased,” “nonsense” and “screwed up.”

Such intransigence has been seen before in other cases of grand scientific claims. Sometimes those theories were based on data irregularities. Other times, the proponents succumbed to self-delusion. But typically, advocates become so invested in their ideas they can’t publicly acknowledge error.

A new look at the comet claim suggests all of these phenomena may be in play, apparently creating a peculiar bond of desperation as the theory came under increasing attack. Indeed, the team’s established scientists are so wedded to the theory they have opted to ignore the fact their colleague “Allen West” isn’t exactly who he says he is.

West is Allen Whitt — who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community.

West’s history — and new concerns about study results he was integrally involved in — raise intriguing questions about the veracity of the comet claim. His background is likely to create more doubts about the theory. And the controversy — because it involves the politically sensitive issue of a climate shift — is potentially more broadly damaging, authorities suggest.

“It does feed distrust in science,” says Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University and an international dean of climate research. “Those who don’t believe in human-produced global warming grab onto it.”

West is at the nexus of almost all the evidence for the original comet claims. His fieldwork is described in the 2006 book he authored with Firestone, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes.

To show the comet’s deadly plume, West collected various sediment samples from 25 archaeology sites across the United States. He used a magnet to find iron flecks reportedly from the comet, scooped up carbon spherules reflecting subsequent fires, and argued that high concentrations of such material at particular sedimentary levels supported their theory.

The team has argued a 4-kilometer comet tumbled into ice sheets 12,900 years ago, leading to the so-called Younger Dryas, when the temperature cooled for more than a thousand years.

The flying debris appeared to answer questions about the Clovis peoples’ disappearance that had defied prior explanation. The supposed remnants of the comet hadn’t received intense scrutiny by researchers previously probing sediments at archaeology sites. And water from melted ice flowing into the oceans could explain the precipitous temperature drop.

But all these claims have been sharply disputed in a series of scientific articles over the last 18 months. Examples include:

University of Wyoming archaeologist Todd Surovell and his colleagues couldn’t find increased magnetic spherules representing cosmic debris at seven Clovis sites. Nicholas Pinter and his colleagues at Southern Illinois University Carbondale argue the carbon spherules are organic residue of fungus or arthropod excrement. And Tyrone Daulton of Washington University in St. Louis and his colleagues reported that supposed nanodiamonds formed by the impact were misidentified.

Speaking of the various reports, Surovell said, “We all built a critical mass of data suggesting there was a serious problem.”

Now, Boslough and colleagues have conducted new analysis of purported comet debris samples that raises even more troubling credibility questions.

On March 25, Boslough reported that radio-carbon dating of a carbon spherule sample shows it is only about 200 years old — an “irregularity” that indicates is it not from the alleged 12,900-year-old impact time.

This means that a sample from a layer purporting to show a high concentration of spherules at the inception of the Younger Dryas actually only was about as old as the Declaration of Independence.

About two years ago, as his doubts on the theory were building, Boslough contacted West to secure carbon spherule samples for analysis. West sent him 16 spherules, purportedly from the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer at an archaeology site called Gainey in Michigan — a location with the highest spherule count of studied locations.

Boslough subsequently forwarded the unopened package of spherules to the National Science Foundation-funded radio-carbon laboratory at the University of Arizona in Tucson. There, a dating specialist randomly selected a spherule — the one ultimately found to be about 200 years old. Boslough reported these results at an American Geophysical Union conference in Santa Fe, N.M.

Afterward, Boslough said: “I don’t think there is any reason to accept what West reported. I have a serious problem with everything from him.”

Did someone salt a sediment layer to increase the spherule count? Or did the 200-year-old sample inadvertently get mixed in somehow? Boslough says he can’t provide an answer, but there was some form of “contamination.”

But an answer is needed, he said: “I wouldn’t sweep it under the rug.”

After his presentation, West wrote Boslough that he believed that the questioned sample somehow got mixed naturally over time into a lower sediment layer. Both Kennett and Firestone agreed.

But Vance Holliday, a University of Arizona archaeologist who has studied Clovis sites for 30 years, found this explanation nonsensical. Such mixing of spherules from different eras could invalidate any conclusion that higher spherule counts represented evidence of a comet impact.

“I suspect something very odd is going on,” adds Holliday, who also has become a critic of the comet theory.

After the theory was first announced in 2007 in Acapulco, Mexico, Holliday had attempted to collaborate with Kennett to test the idea. But Kennett effectively blocked publication of the study last year after the results didn’t support the comet theory.

And those results were blindly analyzed by an independent reviewer selected by Kennett himself. That independent reviewer was none other than Walter Alvarez — an esteemed University of California, Berkeley, geologist and son of Luis Alvarez, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who first proposed an asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico about 65 million years ago, wiping out the world’s dinosaurs and most life.

The Holliday-Kennett study has never been presented publicly. The results were obtained independent of the two authors. Holliday then agreed to discuss events; Kennett also answered questions about the study but didn’t reach the same conclusions as his colleague.

For decades, Holliday has studied a Clovis site at Lubbock Lake Landmark State Historical Park in Texas, just east of the original location where the Clovis people’s distinctive fluted projectile points were first discovered in New Mexico. After a visit there in the summer of 2007, Holliday examined sediments from an exposed section that included the signature of the inception of the Younger Dryas. He then took samples from six sedimentary layers within a 35-centimeter section encompassing the Younger Dryas.

The study then worked like this: Based on analyses of the layers, both Kennett and Holliday sent to Alvarez their predictions on which layer reflected the geochemical characteristics for the beginning of the Younger Dryas. But neither Kennett nor Alvarez knew the order of the sediment layers; not knowing this order would add credibility to their conclusions.

In a surprise, Kennett’s analysis included sedimentary counts for what he called nanodiamonds — which his group says were produced by the enormous energy from comet explosion.

Holliday accurately predicted what layer was associated with the Younger Dryas boundary. But Kennett did not. Kennett’s selected nanodiamond-rich layer was 25 centimeters above the Younger Dryas boundary — meaning it was about 1,000 years younger than the claimed impact time. To Alvarez, this indicated a comet-impact hypothesis was incorrect.

After considerable behind-the-scenes arguing, Holliday said, Kennett ultimately complained last summer that the study was “fundamentally flawed” and wouldn’t allow him to publish his results. Now, Kennett says, he is continuing to analyze the data.

“It is very peculiar,” Holliday said. “They propose an idea, a study contradicts it, then they criticize the scientists or the work.”

Both Kennett and Columbia’s Broecker, are elected members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Science; near age peers, they are also old friends. Years ago, Broecker noted, Kennett published seminal discoveries on ancient climate shifts by studying cores drilled deep into the ocean floor.

Speaking graciously of Kennett, Broecker lauded his friend’s early climate studies as extremely important. But when the comet theory came along, Broecker immediately was highly skeptical. Kennett repeatedly called him to lobby for the comet until Broecker cut him off saying he didn’t want to hear about the theory anymore.

“It is all wrong,” said Broecker, if not “very likely total nonsense. But he never gives up on an idea.”

Kennett seems fixated on the Younger Dryas, Broecker added, “He won’t listen to anyone. It’s almost like a religion to him.”

Acknowledging the dispute, Kennett said, “I know he thinks I’m wrong; maybe he’ll change his mind someday.”

About 20 years ago, Broecker noted Kennett had proposed a similarly wayward theory that a burst of methane from the ocean floor — sometimes called “a methane gun” — warmed the climate, ending the Younger Dyras.

“He pushed the methane-gun theory for years,” said Broecker. “He predicted an enormous methane peak would be reflected in ice-core records. But there wasn’t one; it was a ridiculous idea to begin with.”

Then he switched to the beginning of the Younger Dryas, Broecker added, “He was determined to make a splash; it blinded his judgment.”

Ironically, he may be making a different type of impact with his odd-couple collaboration with West.

West has no formal appointment at an academic institution. He has said he obtained a doctorate from a Bible college, but he won’t describe it further. Firestone said West has told him he has no scientific doctorate but is self-taught. West’s Arizona attorney refers to him in writing as: “A retired geophysicist who has had a long and distinguished career.”

In the early 1990s, a new-age business West was involved in Sedona, Ariz., failed, and his well-drilling company went bankrupt. Then he ran afoul of California law in small Mojave Desert towns in a scheme with two other men, with court records saying they collected fees up to $39,500 for questionable groundwater reports.

He originally was charged with two felonies for falsely representing himself as a state-licensed geologist but agreed to a no contest plea to a single misdemeanor of false advertising as part of plea bargain in which state records say he was fined $4,500. Two other men in the scam also were sanctioned.

Acknowledging he made a mistake, West has sought to downplay the 9-year-old conviction. And last September, after his impact theory colleagues learned of it, he went back to court in Victorville, Calif., convincing a judge to void the old plea.

After earlier denying any impropriety with his Younger Dryas work, West declined a recent interview request. Last month, he wrote a letter charging it was “highly prejudicial and distorted” to bring up his legal past in the context of his current studies. He is a member of “a group of two dozen dedicated scientists performing cutting-edge, although controversial, research,” he wrote.

Initially last year, Kennett was speechless when confronted with West’s history. He and Firestone learned of it because of this reporter’s questions. Since then, he has continued to collaborate and publish research with West. Within weeks of learning of West’s background, Kennett pushed for news coverage last September of an article contending nanodiamonds in Greenland supported their comet theory. But the article didn’t sway critics.

Today, Kennett won’t discuss West’s criminal past at all — saying West is “wonderful, an absolutely remarkable researcher.” Firestone acknowledges West “did some strange things” but continues to defend that his work is above reproach.

Among the theory’s critics, there are decidedly differing opinions.

“This is so far beyond the pale — outside of normal experiences in conducting science — you can’t ignore it,” Southern Illiois’ Pinter said. Asked if he would collaborate with West, he said, “I would run screaming away.”

And the three years and research dollars spent on the claim leave a bitter memory for some. “My response is not publishable,” said Pinter.

Some academic institution needs to thoroughly examine the issue and answer the obvious questions that abound, critics say. Several said they already would have reported the events to administrators at their respective universities.

UCSB is the most likely institution to conduct a review, since Kennett used an NSF grant there on comet studies. But this will mean questioning an esteemed faculty member — Kennett — who is seen as having helped put the campus on the international scientific map.

Among those who believe a formal inquiry should be initiated to determine if there was any misconduct is Jeffrey Severinghaus, an isotopic chemist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. An inquiry is the first level of such scrutiny; an investigation that could lead to sanctions would follow if the inquiry finds evidence of impropriety. Such probes have sniffed out questionable data from cases such as the rejected cold fusion claim and the false Korean assertion of cloning human embryos from stem cells.

“Wow,” said Severinghaus upon hearing of the latest developments in the comet theory, which he initially doubted because of his earlier ice-core studies. “It certainly sounds like there is sufficient evidence to justify an initial inquiry.”

Asked if he would seek such a move, he said, “Absolutely. It is really important to maintain the public trust in science. That means if there is a bad apple, it is rooted out and exposed.”

Bruce Hanley, UCSB’s director of research compliance, declined to be interviewed, although in an email he wrote that UCSB “is extremely interested in maintaining a high level of integrity” in research, and has a formal process for review of “unacceptable research practices.” Such a review is done confidentially.

Meanwhile, the next stop for the comet proponents’ road show is Bern, Switzerland. In July, they are scheduled to present research to a major international conference that studies the last 2.5 million years, the quaternary.

With many leading impact scientists in Europe equally skeptical of the theory, their welcome may be as icy as that period often was.

TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: adhominem; catastrophism; clovis; comets; godsgravesglyphs; pleistocene
A number of links are embedded as citations at the original article.
1 posted on 05/23/2011 5:43:23 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; blam

Comet-Clovis-catastrophism ping.

2 posted on 05/23/2011 5:44:13 PM PDT by Renfield (Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

What a mixed-up mess of a report. Someone REALLY doesn’t want readers to be able to follow the logic of either side without a LOT of digging.

3 posted on 05/23/2011 5:50:12 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I love it when theories fall

4 posted on 05/23/2011 5:52:58 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I can state with one hundred percent conviction that it was NOT me.

5 posted on 05/23/2011 5:55:00 PM PDT by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

More evidence — as if any were needed — why nobody should take this kind of “scientific theory” seriously.

6 posted on 05/23/2011 5:57:44 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; SunkenCiv


7 posted on 05/23/2011 6:01:03 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I know a Comet carried me to school one day but then a Falcon brought me home. Really “cutting edge and controversial” stuff!

8 posted on 05/23/2011 6:24:58 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
...Yet, the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world...
...“It does feed distrust in science,” says Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University and an international dean of climate research. “Those who don’t believe in human-produced global warming grab onto it.”...
Amazing intellectual disconnect, aka cognitive dissonance.

9 posted on 05/23/2011 6:26:25 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I’m waiting for “Clovisgate.”

10 posted on 05/23/2011 6:53:02 PM PDT by enduserindy (Conservative Dead Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I read the book and it was more compelling than Obama's ghost written crap.

The fight over the impact theory of dinosaur extinction was really nasty.

11 posted on 05/23/2011 7:07:37 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Pelosi: Obamacare indulgences for sale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Totally impossible for me to follow this argument, either PRO of CON. My brain just does not want to work that hard.

However, there are a whole bunch of craters in SE North Carolina, all with their elliptical axes aligned NW-SE. these are called the Carolina Bays. Most are estimated to be far older than the Clovis people.

12 posted on 05/23/2011 7:38:06 PM PDT by BwanaNdege ("Experience is the best teacher, but if you can accept it 2nd hand, the tuition is less." M Rosen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I sure liked the comet went well with some of my own ideas.

13 posted on 05/23/2011 7:38:06 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

(check out the nice new cover art!)

The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire, and Famine in the History of Civilization The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization

by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith

14 posted on 05/23/2011 7:48:47 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; 31R1O; ...

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeology Channel
 Bronze Age Forum
 Nat Geographic
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Excerpt, or Link only?

Thanks Renfield, and thanks Quix for the additional ping. All, see my smart-assed remarks above.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

15 posted on 05/23/2011 7:50:37 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Renfield; Quix; gleeaikin; 75thOVI; agrace; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; ...

I was worried because we hadn't had the final, definitive refutation of this theory in over a month. [snicker] Thanks Renfield and Quix!
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

16 posted on 05/23/2011 7:50:37 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Let_It_Be_So

Yes, exactly — this theory was and still is rejected was the global warming cult, but none of them belong in the sciences.

17 posted on 05/23/2011 7:54:50 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

I think I've missed a few topics in the past, oh, six months or so. Anyway, the list thus far:
18 posted on 05/23/2011 7:54:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam; Renfield
Me, too. The comet theory definitely explained why gold in the Ohio Valley is on the hilltops and why it had all the characteristics of gold in Canada in the vicinity of the "splash down".

The folks challenging the theory have no way of explaining the gold ~ I would imagine they think it was rafted in on the glacial lobes that penetrated that area.

Alas, the hills involved were NEVER glaciated in the last 100,000 years.

19 posted on 05/23/2011 7:59:43 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv


20 posted on 05/23/2011 8:03:06 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I kept thinking ‘Like Sands Through an Hourglass, These are these days of our life’, way to much Drama for a seemingly Scientific document

21 posted on 05/23/2011 8:45:04 PM PDT by corbe (mystified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
All, see my smart-assed remarks above.

Why bother pinging me, if you're going to take over my duties before I get there?!? ;-')

22 posted on 05/23/2011 9:37:16 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Still a comet or some other major impact into the North
American ice sheet in the area near the Canadian Border might explain the fascinating Carolina Bays which all radiate from that area.

23 posted on 05/24/2011 3:42:34 AM PDT by finnsheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
This is the way it works (and the simple minded fall for it, and that's most of the population):

There are two ways to fool a person into thinking the impossible becomes possible:

1) Push the creation of life so far back in time that life from non-life becomes possible. With billions and billions of years surely two random molecules combined and started this whole thing.

2) Push the creation of life so far out in the universe that life from non-life becomes possible. The universe was seeded with life that began "out there" trillions of miles away. Sounds almost mystical until you realize that #1 above still must hold true.

An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity.

- C. S. Lewis
24 posted on 05/24/2011 4:23:43 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnsheep

Indeed. There is a great deal of evidence for an impact that is either being ignored or downplayed for whatever reason.

It is hard to ignore the Carolina Bays. It is also important to note that if they are searching for impact evidence in Clovis, New Mexico then they are looking in the wrong place. Considering the “splash” pattern of ejecta, most of the evidence is along the eastern coastline. Normal jetstream patterns would push dust and other evidence into the Atlantic and onto Europe. Additionally, nanodiamond evidence was found in the Greenland ice sheet, east of the possible impact site.

Eh. Eliminate the impossible. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

25 posted on 05/24/2011 7:51:39 AM PDT by BrewingFrog (I brew, therefore I am!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All


I’ve been somewhat following this theory here on FR for the last few years and find it compelling. Anyways I think someone in some previous FR thread listed a website called The Cosmic Tusk. The url is

This website posts articles/reports/studies and such that are supportive of the cometary impact hypothesis. The miller-mccune article that is posted here was also posted on that website. Here is the url

It also has some comments at the end of it some of which are scathing criticisms of this article. You kind of have to wade through the comments a bit though.

Another interesting website that is linked to at the CosmicTusk is the following

It has an article that I found to be really interesting called

“A Different Kind of Climate catastrophe”

Which can be found here

It presents an idea of how the cometary impact could have happened. The gist is that the comet broke up into a meteor stream and that the earth collided with it. The iceballs after they entered were converted to high temperature plasmas which scorched the ground like a blowtorch wiping out the North American Megafauna. This would explain the lack of an impact crater for the event. A very interesting read that I hope members will take a look at.

Anyways, I haven’t given up on the cometary impact hypothesis as the cause of the climate change of the Younger Dryas and the extinction of the megafauna.

As for myself i’m just a layman who has developed an interest in this type of stuff from the postings here on FR. To which I want to thank members who post this kind of stuff.

26 posted on 05/24/2011 10:14:11 AM PDT by CanadianPete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy

“I’m waiting for “Clovisgate.”

Really tired of “thisgate” and “thatgate,” especially when Watergate was such a transparent fraud.

Why not go back a little further, just for variety, and dub it “Clovis-pot Dome?”

27 posted on 05/24/2011 1:50:09 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Let_It_Be_So
Amazing intellectual disconnect, aka cognitive dissonance.

Two different worlds! There's an enormous amount of evidence-gathering, research and non-ideological peer review to be done before any conclusions can be drawn about this.

28 posted on 05/24/2011 4:42:16 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch


29 posted on 05/24/2011 8:34:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CanadianPete

Thanks, will check it out tomorrow.

30 posted on 05/24/2011 8:36:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Renfield
I was worried because we hadn't had the final, definitive refutation of this theory in over a month.

{{{SNORT}}} From Firestone et al's book, best I recall is they were trying, amongst other things probably, to explain the disappearance of a species or two around the time period they were studying. I thought the book was fairly compelling, although it got a tad technical in places. In any case, after a quick read of this article I didn't notice any theories this group of skeptics offered by way of explanation. And their best refutation appeared to consist primarily of sour grapes...

31 posted on 05/24/2011 9:19:14 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

It appears to be another in a series of repetitive hatchet jobs. Kudos to the various media nimrods who regurgitate the phony critiques. :’)

The embedded particles, black mat, and sudden extinction (which included the short-lived Clovis culture) are real. The researchers didn’t make ‘em up, or pull ‘em out of their nether regions. :’)

32 posted on 05/25/2011 6:09:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
nobody should take this kind of “scientific theory” seriously

Stop typing on your keyboard, switch off your computer, and never again use teh product of modern technology. All modern devices with electronic circuits depend upon the scientific theory of bandgaps with conduction holes and electrons to operate.

Lots and lots of scientific theories are well established and help us get through our daily lives. Some ar bunk because they do not stand up to careful scrutiny when all the evidence is examined. That this theory may have been overhyped nonsense does not invalidate all scientific theory.

33 posted on 05/27/2011 5:33:30 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
...insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world.

Sounds like a typical evolutionist.

34 posted on 05/27/2011 5:37:13 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson