More Comments by Graham Hancock About Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
Popular writer and fringe archaeologist Graham Hancock has written a new and extended commentary
about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. He is quite unhappy about he believes that he and other proponents of this hypothesis have been treated by so-called “gradualists” whoever they are, within the scientific community. The commentary is at:
Why Science Should Cherish Its Rebels by Graham Hancock
Commentary by Jason Calavito on Hancock’s comments can be found at:
In Major New Article, Graham Hancock Repeats Previous Anti-Scientist Claims, Defends the Search for Atlantis
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog -- http://www.jasoncolavito.com
Related comments by Jason Calavito can be found in:
Academic Journal Runs Article Claiming Göbekli Tepe Records Comet Strike, Misses Fact That Article Is Based on Speculative Andrew Collins Book 4/22/2017
Orbiting the Graham Hancock Universe: "Archaeological Fantasies" Explores Gobekli Tepe and Rebecca Bradley Discusses Gunung Padang, 5/16/2017
Göbekli Tepe, Bad Fox, No Comet - Episode 73
Contrary to what Mr. Hancock seems to believe, neocatastrophism has become popular among
geologists and scientists as discussed in:
Marriner, N., Morhange, C. and Skrimshire, S., 2010. Geoscience meets the four horsemen?: Tracking the rise of neocatastrophism. Global and Planetary Change, 74(1), pp.43-48.
One item that Jason Calavito did not mention in his commentaries, is that Mr. Hancock does not appreciate the significance of recent research about the chronology of the Missoula (Spokane) Floods and older “Ancient Cataclysmic Floods.” The identification of numerous Missoula Floods has nothing to do with any imaginary conspiracy by an equally imaginary cabal of nameless “gradualists.” Rather the recognition is based upon multiple, unconformity-bounded sets of flood deposits. These flood deposits are separated subaerial exposure surfaces in which paleosols, including some very well-developed calcretes, and terrestrial animals burrows have developed. There also are separate sets of clastic dikes truncated at different unconformities. Some of different sets of flood deposits have been
dated using, where possible, by radiocarbon dating magnetostratigraphy, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and tephrachronology. The oldest of these deposits predate 1.77 million years ago. There exists an abundance of published evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of innumerable Missoula-like megafloods over a period greater than 1.77 million years.
Also, Mr. Hancock overlooks Antonio Zamora ‘s badly flawed optically stimulated luminescence arguments that ignores the context of these dates and collaborating pollen records from the fills of the Carolina Bays.
Finally, Mr. Hancock is seemingly unaware of the lack of any credible evidence supporting the existence of Michael Davias’ seemingly imaginary Saginaw Bay impact structure that is used to explain the Carolina Bays. The geology that region is well known enough to show that there is a complete lack of the deformation of bedrock and overlying Quaternary deposits that such an impact would have caused. Also, any geophysical signature ot such as impact structure is lacking. Finally, regional
sedimentary and paleoenvironmental archives for that time period lack and are undisturbed by the ejecta deposits that such an impact would have created. The Saginaw Bay impact structure is just one of a few likely imaginary Pleistocene impact craters that have been reported in the Great lakes region.