Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
perhaps a better explanation of the Mastodon death trap in Colorado shown on NOVA
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2012, 2:10:23 AM2/4/12
to
I think it was yesterday, thursday that I viewed this program on PBS
while eating dinner. It is called "Ice Age Death Trap"
And I thought I was going to be not entertained by a logical puzzle,
but rather
a drab program on fossil finds. But let me tell you, the show became
far more
fascinating than anything like a Sherlock Holmes or other mysteries.
What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
and stuck and starved to death.
And then to add to the mystery another mastodon was found with
boulders surrounding it. And the speculation here was that an early
Homo clan cached the mastodon body in the lake for preservation of
food.
Well let me shot some holes into the above two speculations.
I lived out West for a number of years and was very familar with flash
floods, especially when it took out the bridge.
Now I do not know the dimensions of the lake in Colorado during the
time of the Mastodons but a lake has to be fed by some stream or minor
river, and how high of the surroundings such as mountains were to the
lake. But if you ever saw a flash flood from a rainstorm, it would
take entire families of mastodon and transport them to their death.
Now as for the one mastodon bone with notches in the bones, that rocks
in a flood moving over the body would gouge out the bones.
Let us examine some probabilities:
(a) is it probable that the lake had that consistency of sand, when no
modern day lake has that consistency to where an earthquake would
cause a sand trap
(b) is it likely that humans were in North America 40,000 years
earlier than what is now known? That we have only some notches on a
bone and a few boulders near the bones?
(c) is it likely that humans of that time and place even had a idea of
caching? Do we see human intelligence in the Old World cacheing food
in lakes? I do not think so, and since we do not, then to make the
speculation of caching in the Americas and none in the Old World of
that same time period is stretching belief.
(d) no signs of predators for entire families of stuck in the sand
mastodons
is odd, and would not favor that scenario, but would favor a flash
flood scenario where the entire pack is sent to death in a flash
flood.
So my vote goes to Flash Flood.
Now I would need to see the geology of that lake region whether there
were streams feeding the lake and whether there were mountain high
points around.
Also, another thing that can be done is to investigate a flash flood
killing of some other herd animals in the past, perhaps Africa, or the
western USA. See how many animals were involved, whether any had a
pile of boulders around their bones. Whether any had notches in their
bones from rocks scraping.
Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
texture.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
while eating dinner. It is called "Ice Age Death Trap"
And I thought I was going to be not entertained by a logical puzzle,
but rather
a drab program on fossil finds. But let me tell you, the show became
far more
fascinating than anything like a Sherlock Holmes or other mysteries.
What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
and stuck and starved to death.
And then to add to the mystery another mastodon was found with
boulders surrounding it. And the speculation here was that an early
Homo clan cached the mastodon body in the lake for preservation of
food.
Well let me shot some holes into the above two speculations.
I lived out West for a number of years and was very familar with flash
floods, especially when it took out the bridge.
Now I do not know the dimensions of the lake in Colorado during the
time of the Mastodons but a lake has to be fed by some stream or minor
river, and how high of the surroundings such as mountains were to the
lake. But if you ever saw a flash flood from a rainstorm, it would
take entire families of mastodon and transport them to their death.
Now as for the one mastodon bone with notches in the bones, that rocks
in a flood moving over the body would gouge out the bones.
Let us examine some probabilities:
(a) is it probable that the lake had that consistency of sand, when no
modern day lake has that consistency to where an earthquake would
cause a sand trap
(b) is it likely that humans were in North America 40,000 years
earlier than what is now known? That we have only some notches on a
bone and a few boulders near the bones?
(c) is it likely that humans of that time and place even had a idea of
caching? Do we see human intelligence in the Old World cacheing food
in lakes? I do not think so, and since we do not, then to make the
speculation of caching in the Americas and none in the Old World of
that same time period is stretching belief.
(d) no signs of predators for entire families of stuck in the sand
mastodons
is odd, and would not favor that scenario, but would favor a flash
flood scenario where the entire pack is sent to death in a flash
flood.
So my vote goes to Flash Flood.
Now I would need to see the geology of that lake region whether there
were streams feeding the lake and whether there were mountain high
points around.
Also, another thing that can be done is to investigate a flash flood
killing of some other herd animals in the past, perhaps Africa, or the
western USA. See how many animals were involved, whether any had a
pile of boulders around their bones. Whether any had notches in their
bones from rocks scraping.
Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
texture.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2012, 3:31:37 AM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 1:10 am, Archimedes Plutonium
I used to live in Teton National Park near Jackson Lake and in the
winter near
the dam, I could see dead moose who had fallen through the ice and had
drowned.
In science theory, we must seek the most simple explanations first,
before we
opine exotic explanations such as a earthquake quicksand trap.
I missed the first 1/4 of this NOVA show about Mastodon trap in
Colorado,
but if the lake were large and then we can see a scenario of where a
herd or
troop of Mastodon went walking out on the ice and fell in and drowned.
It would
explain why none were victims of predators. And for the explanation of
the "cached
Mastodon", perhaps it had fallen through the ice and that a predator
made it out on the
ice and eaten about 1/2 of the animal and left some teeth marks in the
bones with the notches.
I am not in full possession of the facts about that Lake, but what I
am emphasizing is that
when doing science we have to start out with the first hypothesis as
simple as possible
and only lastly do we want to accept something exotic such as
earthquake-quicksand
and 40,000 year earlier Homo presence in North America cacheing food
in a lake.
And where those boulders around that Mastodon were deposited before
its death via flash flood or something else.
In logic we use Occam's Razor always, start with the most simple and
only end up with exotica
if the simple does not work.
winter near
the dam, I could see dead moose who had fallen through the ice and had
drowned.
In science theory, we must seek the most simple explanations first,
before we
opine exotic explanations such as a earthquake quicksand trap.
I missed the first 1/4 of this NOVA show about Mastodon trap in
Colorado,
but if the lake were large and then we can see a scenario of where a
herd or
troop of Mastodon went walking out on the ice and fell in and drowned.
It would
explain why none were victims of predators. And for the explanation of
the "cached
Mastodon", perhaps it had fallen through the ice and that a predator
made it out on the
ice and eaten about 1/2 of the animal and left some teeth marks in the
bones with the notches.
I am not in full possession of the facts about that Lake, but what I
am emphasizing is that
when doing science we have to start out with the first hypothesis as
simple as possible
and only lastly do we want to accept something exotic such as
earthquake-quicksand
and 40,000 year earlier Homo presence in North America cacheing food
in a lake.
And where those boulders around that Mastodon were deposited before
its death via flash flood or something else.
In logic we use Occam's Razor always, start with the most simple and
only end up with exotica
if the simple does not work.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2012, 4:14:17 AM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 2:31 am, Archimedes Plutonium
Come to think of it, the experiment used in that NOVA show is flawed
of its
generalization.
In that show, they had a box where they put sand and then added water
and I knew
from past experience that a wet sand is stronger than a dry sand. So
things were okay
up to this point. But then the scientists shook the box to simulate a
Earthquake and watched the sand separate from the water and thus they
concluded that the sand would now trap their
mastodons.
But I believe a science fallacy was committed at that conclusion, for
if you watched the program, they really had to shake that sand box, by
lifting it up and virtually flipping the contents as if they were
flipping hotcakes for a breakfast meal.
So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
That box was not an Earthquake but more like a meteor blast that marks
the Cretaceous boundary. That was not an earthquake simulation but a
terraforming of the earth.
I post this to sci.physics, so that someone there can explain to the
geologists how much of a shaking of that box to simulate the worst of
earthquakes, and I reckon that no such event has ever taken place on
Earth.
So the best candidate theory as to why those mastodon died in a family
group at that lake is probably falling through the ice in winter time.
Maybe it was the first time that the lake there
was frozen over to where the Mastodon were not familiar with ice and
the ice broke and all fell in.
But the error is that a model for geology has to be to scale, and no
earthquake is a shaking and flipping of the box of sand as
demonstrated on NOVA.
of its
generalization.
In that show, they had a box where they put sand and then added water
and I knew
from past experience that a wet sand is stronger than a dry sand. So
things were okay
up to this point. But then the scientists shook the box to simulate a
Earthquake and watched the sand separate from the water and thus they
concluded that the sand would now trap their
mastodons.
But I believe a science fallacy was committed at that conclusion, for
if you watched the program, they really had to shake that sand box, by
lifting it up and virtually flipping the contents as if they were
flipping hotcakes for a breakfast meal.
So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
That box was not an Earthquake but more like a meteor blast that marks
the Cretaceous boundary. That was not an earthquake simulation but a
terraforming of the earth.
I post this to sci.physics, so that someone there can explain to the
geologists how much of a shaking of that box to simulate the worst of
earthquakes, and I reckon that no such event has ever taken place on
Earth.
So the best candidate theory as to why those mastodon died in a family
group at that lake is probably falling through the ice in winter time.
Maybe it was the first time that the lake there
was frozen over to where the Mastodon were not familiar with ice and
the ice broke and all fell in.
But the error is that a model for geology has to be to scale, and no
earthquake is a shaking and flipping of the box of sand as
demonstrated on NOVA.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2012, 6:33:01 AM2/4/12
to
A hot bathe always seems to do wonders for me.
I was wondering if I could prove the Mastodons of Snowmass Colorado
had died by
breaking the lake ice and drowning versus the hypothesis of earthquake-
quicksand.
I come to realize that a bodies final resting position would be
different for a drowning
compared to a quicksand stuck in place.
If a mastodon drowns, the body will fall to the lake bottom and the
chances would be that
the foot and legs would stick upwards with the body lying on its back
or the body would be sideways.
If the mastodon had died in stuck quicksand the foot and legs would be
on the bottom, and the rest of the skeleton on top, but the feet would
be as if they were still standing.
If my memory is correct from the TV pictures, the fossils were of the
bodies lying with the legs and feet, at least two feet pointing up.
So the lying position of those fossil mastodons can distinguish
whether they died by drowning or by earthquake quicksand, and from the
pictures, it appears they died by drowning.
As for the human cached mastodon, if I remember correctly, half the
skeleton was missing
and a bone had notches in it. I suspect this mastodon died by falling
in the ice and drowning and then a predator came along and pulled 1/2
of the body out on the ice and ate it and the other half slipped back
into the water and sunk. I remember seeing a NATURE show where bears
usually come along on the ice and pull out those carcasses of drowned
herbivores from a ice lake or ice river. and the notches could have
easily been teeth marks by a bear.
Now it looks as though that explanation is the easiest and most
convincing. So one has to wonder what is going on with NOVA that they
insult the world audience with science that is
half thought through? Is it that the scientists involved would know
that a story of mastodon falling through the ice would be not much of
a story and not be put on NOVA, so instead, a
silly theory of earthquake-quicksand would grab attention and
publicity? And the story of human
cache with notches. I would ask the question of whether those notches
were really there in the first place or whether someone was pulling a
prank and carved the notches while others were not looking? I say that
because, it is so simple to see a breaking of the ice drowning yet a
earthquake-quicksand is dreamed up, so that it looks as though the on
site scientists are
not looking for real answers but rather looking to exaggerate a story
that does not need titillation. So, maybe, perhaps on Thursday while
eating my dinner and thinking I was watching
another drab fossil find in Colorado, well, that was the truth after
all.
Am I the only one to notice the poorer and poorer quality of NOVA
shows? What we need is a return of the Mechanical Universe type series
out of Caltech. Seems as though NOVA has become some ad pitch box for
crank and crackpot ideas that are just plain nonscience like Brian
Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos. It used to be where you seldom found a
mistake in a NOVA science show. Nowadays, entire episodes are
nonscience or fake science.
The mastodon dig is mostly science except for the silly theory
offered. So that if the theory had been excised, the rest would have
been good science. So a future episode of the mastodon dig, would
prove that they died by breaking through the ice on the lake and
drowning. It would be like a CSI mystery solved.
I was wondering if I could prove the Mastodons of Snowmass Colorado
had died by
breaking the lake ice and drowning versus the hypothesis of earthquake-
quicksand.
I come to realize that a bodies final resting position would be
different for a drowning
compared to a quicksand stuck in place.
If a mastodon drowns, the body will fall to the lake bottom and the
chances would be that
the foot and legs would stick upwards with the body lying on its back
or the body would be sideways.
If the mastodon had died in stuck quicksand the foot and legs would be
on the bottom, and the rest of the skeleton on top, but the feet would
be as if they were still standing.
If my memory is correct from the TV pictures, the fossils were of the
bodies lying with the legs and feet, at least two feet pointing up.
So the lying position of those fossil mastodons can distinguish
whether they died by drowning or by earthquake quicksand, and from the
pictures, it appears they died by drowning.
As for the human cached mastodon, if I remember correctly, half the
skeleton was missing
and a bone had notches in it. I suspect this mastodon died by falling
in the ice and drowning and then a predator came along and pulled 1/2
of the body out on the ice and ate it and the other half slipped back
into the water and sunk. I remember seeing a NATURE show where bears
usually come along on the ice and pull out those carcasses of drowned
herbivores from a ice lake or ice river. and the notches could have
easily been teeth marks by a bear.
Now it looks as though that explanation is the easiest and most
convincing. So one has to wonder what is going on with NOVA that they
insult the world audience with science that is
half thought through? Is it that the scientists involved would know
that a story of mastodon falling through the ice would be not much of
a story and not be put on NOVA, so instead, a
silly theory of earthquake-quicksand would grab attention and
publicity? And the story of human
cache with notches. I would ask the question of whether those notches
were really there in the first place or whether someone was pulling a
prank and carved the notches while others were not looking? I say that
because, it is so simple to see a breaking of the ice drowning yet a
earthquake-quicksand is dreamed up, so that it looks as though the on
site scientists are
not looking for real answers but rather looking to exaggerate a story
that does not need titillation. So, maybe, perhaps on Thursday while
eating my dinner and thinking I was watching
another drab fossil find in Colorado, well, that was the truth after
all.
Am I the only one to notice the poorer and poorer quality of NOVA
shows? What we need is a return of the Mechanical Universe type series
out of Caltech. Seems as though NOVA has become some ad pitch box for
crank and crackpot ideas that are just plain nonscience like Brian
Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos. It used to be where you seldom found a
mistake in a NOVA science show. Nowadays, entire episodes are
nonscience or fake science.
The mastodon dig is mostly science except for the silly theory
offered. So that if the theory had been excised, the rest would have
been good science. So a future episode of the mastodon dig, would
prove that they died by breaking through the ice on the lake and
drowning. It would be like a CSI mystery solved.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2012, 6:33:54 AM2/4/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 5, 2012, 4:26:33 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 4, 5:33 am, Archimedes Plutonium
Well there is hardly any proofs in science of geology, and I maybe
wrong on the skeleton
position if drowned or caught in quicksand. I would have to see
profiles of skeletons in the tar
pits found. But I think there is another loophole in the Earthquake-
quicksand Hypothesis in that once the earthquake is gone, it remains
to be seen whether that sand recovered the water and enabled the
mastodons to quickly release themselves since the sand becomes more
firm in short time.
I really think those geologists who offered that hypothesis need to
check it out in a physics laboratory, for I doubt any earthquake is
sufficient to shake the water out of the sand to the extent and scale
of that model they used. But even so, I suspect the sand would recover
in very
quick time to become firm enough for the mastodons to free themselves.
I was wondering if an animal is killed by drowning in cold water after
falling through the ice, whether that death would leave some
indications on the skeletal bones. I suppose the fish and
other creatures at the lake bottom would feed on the dead carcass,
leaving the bones, but would those bones show some sign of that
drowning?
wrong on the skeleton
position if drowned or caught in quicksand. I would have to see
profiles of skeletons in the tar
pits found. But I think there is another loophole in the Earthquake-
quicksand Hypothesis in that once the earthquake is gone, it remains
to be seen whether that sand recovered the water and enabled the
mastodons to quickly release themselves since the sand becomes more
firm in short time.
I really think those geologists who offered that hypothesis need to
check it out in a physics laboratory, for I doubt any earthquake is
sufficient to shake the water out of the sand to the extent and scale
of that model they used. But even so, I suspect the sand would recover
in very
quick time to become firm enough for the mastodons to free themselves.
I was wondering if an animal is killed by drowning in cold water after
falling through the ice, whether that death would leave some
indications on the skeletal bones. I suppose the fish and
other creatures at the lake bottom would feed on the dead carcass,
leaving the bones, but would those bones show some sign of that
drowning?
Tonico
Feb 5, 2012, 7:14:32 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 11:26 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
Idiot
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies-
Idiot
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 5, 2012, 3:15:55 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 3:26 am, Archimedes Plutonium
The geologists of this NOVA show love doing exotica theory, and really
good science.
For example, their sand in the box shaking as if simulating a
earthquake separates the
water from the sand but they never thought to put that to the scale of
an actual beach
and an actual earthquake. Their box of sand is not a scale
representation of an earthquake
but rather the simulation of the Earth being hit by the Moon in some
collision.
But their is some physics that those geologists could have put to
scale, and that physics
is the freezing of a lake surface. In physics, we know that a lake
freezes from the shore
to the middle and the middle is the last place the lake freezes
solid.
So how many mastodon were found at that Snowmass Colorado site? And
were the animals
killed in one season or were some killed in one year and another few
killed the next year
etc etc.
In a scenario where a troop of mastodon venture out on the middle of a
frozen lake, it is
easy to see that a troop would break the ice, fall in and drown, and
only mastodon would
be particularly vulnerable to such a thing, not its predators.
If the mastodons were killed in different years then that immediately
dispels the silly theory of
Earthquake-Quicksand, because why would earthquakes be a periodic
timing, whereas freezing of the lake is a periodic timing event.
About the only real good question those geologists had to ask was why
is Snowmass lake
so good in deposits that the bones were fossilized. Why were other
lakes less prone to fossilization of bone remains? When geologists
venture into the realms of physics, they often
and usually make silly fools of themselves, for the lesson to learn in
this NOVA show is that
models have to be built to scale, and notice how much shaking and
flipping of the contents of that sand box had to take place in the
demonstration. A physicist would then ask the geologist
how much of an earthquake did they think they simulated.
good science.
For example, their sand in the box shaking as if simulating a
earthquake separates the
water from the sand but they never thought to put that to the scale of
an actual beach
and an actual earthquake. Their box of sand is not a scale
representation of an earthquake
but rather the simulation of the Earth being hit by the Moon in some
collision.
But their is some physics that those geologists could have put to
scale, and that physics
is the freezing of a lake surface. In physics, we know that a lake
freezes from the shore
to the middle and the middle is the last place the lake freezes
solid.
So how many mastodon were found at that Snowmass Colorado site? And
were the animals
killed in one season or were some killed in one year and another few
killed the next year
etc etc.
In a scenario where a troop of mastodon venture out on the middle of a
frozen lake, it is
easy to see that a troop would break the ice, fall in and drown, and
only mastodon would
be particularly vulnerable to such a thing, not its predators.
If the mastodons were killed in different years then that immediately
dispels the silly theory of
Earthquake-Quicksand, because why would earthquakes be a periodic
timing, whereas freezing of the lake is a periodic timing event.
About the only real good question those geologists had to ask was why
is Snowmass lake
so good in deposits that the bones were fossilized. Why were other
lakes less prone to fossilization of bone remains? When geologists
venture into the realms of physics, they often
and usually make silly fools of themselves, for the lesson to learn in
this NOVA show is that
models have to be built to scale, and notice how much shaking and
flipping of the contents of that sand box had to take place in the
demonstration. A physicist would then ask the geologist
how much of an earthquake did they think they simulated.
David R Tribble
Feb 6, 2012, 5:47:56 PM2/6/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
>> the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
>> earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
>> were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
>> and stuck and starved to death.
>
>> What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
>> the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
>> earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
>> were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
>> and stuck and starved to death.
>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Come to think of it, the experiment used in that NOVA show is flawed
> of its
> generalization.
>
> In that show, they had a box where they put sand and then added water
> and I knew
> from past experience that a wet sand is stronger than a dry sand. So
> things were okay
> up to this point. But then the scientists shook the box to simulate a
> Earthquake and watched the sand separate from the water and thus they
> concluded that the sand would now trap their
> mastodons.
>
> But I believe a science fallacy was committed at that conclusion, for
> if you watched the program, they really had to shake that sand box, by
> lifting it up and virtually flipping the contents as if they were
> flipping hotcakes for a breakfast meal.
>
> So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
> experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
Then how do you explain the pictures shown (in the same
> Come to think of it, the experiment used in that NOVA show is flawed
> of its
> generalization.
>
> In that show, they had a box where they put sand and then added water
> and I knew
> from past experience that a wet sand is stronger than a dry sand. So
> things were okay
> up to this point. But then the scientists shook the box to simulate a
> Earthquake and watched the sand separate from the water and thus they
> concluded that the sand would now trap their
> mastodons.
>
> But I believe a science fallacy was committed at that conclusion, for
> if you watched the program, they really had to shake that sand box, by
> lifting it up and virtually flipping the contents as if they were
> flipping hotcakes for a breakfast meal.
>
> So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
> experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
show) of automobiles completely submerged in damp sand
following an earthquake?
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 6, 2012, 6:02:44 PM2/6/12
to
whole show, to see if anything you have said is true. Automobiles
dumped in a sand lot
would sink not because of earthquakes but sink because of dry season,
dry sand, and that all autos in a sand lot sink whether there is an
earthquake or not an earthquake. Earthquakes are superfluous to the
sinking in sand, although it may facilitate a sinking. But once the
earthquake is over with, the sand quickly restores its own wetness and
the mastodons would have freed themselves shortly after an earthquake.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 7, 2012, 2:14:33 AM2/7/12
to
Well, here is a even more simple explanation for the alleged "cached
mastodon".
An explanation that does not even involve breaking through the ice on
the lake and
drowning.
The fossil of a single animal was found near some boulders. It was
only a partial
skeleton remains and one bone had marks on it.
The most simple explanation, Occam's Razor, would be to say that a
predator
had killed it near the shores of the lake, perhaps at the lake itself,
and some of the
body was dragged away and some remained near the shore. The shore
remains were
covered over and became fossilized. The one bone with markings was
where the predator
chewed on that bone. I suppose the America's did not have a hyena type
of predator. It probably
had the forebearers of what are now known as wolverines.
What I am saying is that this Colorado Snowmass has simple
explanations and not those
goofy exotica explanations of earthquake-quicksand and humans 40,000
years earlier with
mastodon caches in a lake. Scientists step out of bounds when they do
not apply the most
simple explanations first, and head for the silly and stupid exotica.
mastodon".
An explanation that does not even involve breaking through the ice on
the lake and
drowning.
The fossil of a single animal was found near some boulders. It was
only a partial
skeleton remains and one bone had marks on it.
The most simple explanation, Occam's Razor, would be to say that a
predator
had killed it near the shores of the lake, perhaps at the lake itself,
and some of the
body was dragged away and some remained near the shore. The shore
remains were
covered over and became fossilized. The one bone with markings was
where the predator
chewed on that bone. I suppose the America's did not have a hyena type
of predator. It probably
had the forebearers of what are now known as wolverines.
What I am saying is that this Colorado Snowmass has simple
explanations and not those
goofy exotica explanations of earthquake-quicksand and humans 40,000
years earlier with
mastodon caches in a lake. Scientists step out of bounds when they do
not apply the most
simple explanations first, and head for the silly and stupid exotica.
brad
Feb 7, 2012, 12:41:46 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 4, 2:10 am, Archimedes Plutonium
the
overall energy of deposition. Wouldn't a flashflood transport more
than just
sand and silt ? If it could move a large animal it could transport
boulders as well.
Very few boulders are found in the deposit. The environment of
deposition
must have been a low energy one. Additionally the rocks found are
rounded;
They were rolled around in riverbeds. It's an odd place to find them.
> Now as for the one mastodon bone with notches in the bones, that rocks
> in a flood moving over the body would gouge out the bones.
>
> Let us examine some probabilities:
>
> (a) is it probable that the lake had that consistency of sand, when no
> modern day lake has that consistency to where an earthquake would
> cause a sand trap
?????? How do you draw that conclusion? Permafrost lakes.
> (b) is it likely that humans were in North America 40,000 years
> earlier than what is now known?
I for one am intrigued, as I always thought it odd that humans could
reach
Australia ~50,000 years ago, mind you they had to cross open ocean.
Meanwhile,
N. America was only colonized 20,000 years ago and all they had to do
was walk!
Perhaps the evidence hasn't been found yet. Most likely it's buried
underwater
on the Continental Shelf which was exposed at the time.
>That we have only some notches on a
> bone ----
PARALLEL notches!!! Still, NOT conclusive thus the ambiguity and
speculation.
> and a few boulders near the bones?
> (c) is it likely that humans of that time and place even had a idea of
> caching? Do we see human intelligence in the Old World cacheing food
> in lakes? I do not think so, and since we do not, then to make the
> speculation of caching in the Americas and none in the Old World of
> that same time period is stretching belief.
Try not to make conclusions based on your own assumptions.
size and weight. Right? So why do we find adults with juveniles? The
smaller
ones should have been washed downstream.
One possible explanation that would allow your hypothesis would
require
the deposit site to fill like a tub and then drain out allowing
trapped carcasses
to just settle in situ as the water drained away, presumably through
the sand.
Brad
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
> the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
> earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
> were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
> and stuck and starved to death.
>
> And then to add to the mystery another mastodon was found with
> boulders surrounding it. And the speculation here was that an early
> Homo clan cached the mastodon body in the lake for preservation of
> food.
>
> Well let me shot some holes into the above two speculations.
>
> I lived out West for a number of years and was very familar with flash
> floods, especially when it took out the bridge.
>
> Now I do not know the dimensions of the lake in Colorado during the
> time of the Mastodons but a lake has to be fed by some stream or minor
> river, and how high of the surroundings such as mountains were to the
> lake. But if you ever saw a flash flood from a rainstorm, it would
> take entire families of mastodon and transport them to their death.
The deposit and its contents provide strong clues as to the nature of
> What is fascinating is that the scientists in the dig speculated that
> the death trap was caused by the sands near the lake and that an
> earthquake struck and the poor mastodon family drinking in the lake
> were then stuck because the earthquake made the sand into quicksand
> and stuck and starved to death.
>
> And then to add to the mystery another mastodon was found with
> boulders surrounding it. And the speculation here was that an early
> Homo clan cached the mastodon body in the lake for preservation of
> food.
>
> Well let me shot some holes into the above two speculations.
>
> I lived out West for a number of years and was very familar with flash
> floods, especially when it took out the bridge.
>
> Now I do not know the dimensions of the lake in Colorado during the
> time of the Mastodons but a lake has to be fed by some stream or minor
> river, and how high of the surroundings such as mountains were to the
> lake. But if you ever saw a flash flood from a rainstorm, it would
> take entire families of mastodon and transport them to their death.
the
overall energy of deposition. Wouldn't a flashflood transport more
than just
sand and silt ? If it could move a large animal it could transport
boulders as well.
Very few boulders are found in the deposit. The environment of
deposition
must have been a low energy one. Additionally the rocks found are
rounded;
They were rolled around in riverbeds. It's an odd place to find them.
> Now as for the one mastodon bone with notches in the bones, that rocks
> in a flood moving over the body would gouge out the bones.
>
> Let us examine some probabilities:
>
> (a) is it probable that the lake had that consistency of sand, when no
> modern day lake has that consistency to where an earthquake would
> cause a sand trap
> (b) is it likely that humans were in North America 40,000 years
> earlier than what is now known?
reach
Australia ~50,000 years ago, mind you they had to cross open ocean.
Meanwhile,
N. America was only colonized 20,000 years ago and all they had to do
was walk!
Perhaps the evidence hasn't been found yet. Most likely it's buried
underwater
on the Continental Shelf which was exposed at the time.
>That we have only some notches on a
PARALLEL notches!!! Still, NOT conclusive thus the ambiguity and
speculation.
> and a few boulders near the bones?
> (c) is it likely that humans of that time and place even had a idea of
> caching? Do we see human intelligence in the Old World cacheing food
> in lakes? I do not think so, and since we do not, then to make the
> speculation of caching in the Americas and none in the Old World of
> that same time period is stretching belief.
>
> (d) no signs of predators for entire families of stuck in the sand
> mastodons
> is odd, and would not favor that scenario, but would favor a flash
> flood scenario where the entire pack is sent to death in a flash
> flood.
How deep does the water have to be to float a Mastodon? Depends on its
> (d) no signs of predators for entire families of stuck in the sand
> mastodons
> is odd, and would not favor that scenario, but would favor a flash
> flood scenario where the entire pack is sent to death in a flash
> flood.
size and weight. Right? So why do we find adults with juveniles? The
smaller
ones should have been washed downstream.
One possible explanation that would allow your hypothesis would
require
the deposit site to fill like a tub and then drain out allowing
trapped carcasses
to just settle in situ as the water drained away, presumably through
the sand.
>
> Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
> texture.
In the American West? Why not?
> Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
> texture.
Brad
David R Tribble
Feb 7, 2012, 2:25:56 PM2/7/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
>> experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
>
>> So I think we can rule out Earthquakes because Earth just does not
>> experience earthquakes as simulated in that box of sand experiment.
>
David R Tribble wrote:
>> Then how do you explain the pictures shown (in the same
>> show) of automobiles completely submerged in damp sand
>> following an earthquake?
>
>> Then how do you explain the pictures shown (in the same
>> show) of automobiles completely submerged in damp sand
>> following an earthquake?
>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Well I missed part of the show, so have to wait until I can catch the
> whole show, to see if anything you have said is true. Automobiles
> dumped in a sand lot
> would sink not because of earthquakes but sink because of dry season,
> dry sand, and that all autos in a sand lot sink whether there is an
> earthquake or not an earthquake. Earthquakes are superfluous to the
> sinking in sand, although it may facilitate a sinking. But once the
> earthquake is over with, the sand quickly restores its own wetness and
> the mastodons would have freed themselves shortly after an earthquake.
Um, no.
> Well I missed part of the show, so have to wait until I can catch the
> whole show, to see if anything you have said is true. Automobiles
> dumped in a sand lot
> would sink not because of earthquakes but sink because of dry season,
> dry sand, and that all autos in a sand lot sink whether there is an
> earthquake or not an earthquake. Earthquakes are superfluous to the
> sinking in sand, although it may facilitate a sinking. But once the
> earthquake is over with, the sand quickly restores its own wetness and
> the mastodons would have freed themselves shortly after an earthquake.
See these images:
http://phamilynews.net/say-it-with-me-liquefaction
https://www.google.com/search?q=liquifaction+earthquake&tbm=isch
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 7, 2012, 3:47:30 PM2/7/12
to
(snipped)
flood", but the second of writing
I realized Occam's Razor is better served with a breaking of the ice
and drowning explanation.
As for the single skeleton found near boulders and one bone that was
notched, is best explained as a predator that killed and ate most of
the victim but left behind the bones and one notched bone. We can
easily test to see if the teeth of a predator can cause those notches.
And the only real explanation required for Colorado Snowmass is
explaining how and why they were fossilized so easily whereas other
lakes did not have such great fossilization.
So fossilization is the only real important open question at Snowmass,
not these silly, daffy and stupid exotica of earthquake-quicksand or
early humans cacheing mastodons in lakes.
Sorry if I railed against geologists for I see now that it is
biologists who came up with cacheing, when biologists should realize
that they have too much flights of silly imagination rather than
enough solid logic. Science should not be pandered to TV crowds
because fossilization is not as interesting as silly and stupid
earthquake-quicksand with cacheing. We do not want to sell science
because the real truth is rather boring, and so those wanting a TV
show give us this fake science. NOVA in the past decade has become
more and more fakery than science.
>
> One possible explanation that would allow your hypothesis would
> require
> the deposit site to fill like a tub and then drain out allowing
> trapped carcasses
> to just settle in situ as the water drained away, presumably through
> the sand.
>
>
>
> > Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
> > texture.
>
> In the American West? Why not?
>
> Brad
The first day of writing in this thread, I started with the "flash
> One possible explanation that would allow your hypothesis would
> require
> the deposit site to fill like a tub and then drain out allowing
> trapped carcasses
> to just settle in situ as the water drained away, presumably through
> the sand.
>
>
>
> > Probabilities just do not favor a scenario of Earthquake, sand
> > texture.
>
> In the American West? Why not?
>
> Brad
flood", but the second of writing
I realized Occam's Razor is better served with a breaking of the ice
and drowning explanation.
As for the single skeleton found near boulders and one bone that was
notched, is best explained as a predator that killed and ate most of
the victim but left behind the bones and one notched bone. We can
easily test to see if the teeth of a predator can cause those notches.
And the only real explanation required for Colorado Snowmass is
explaining how and why they were fossilized so easily whereas other
lakes did not have such great fossilization.
So fossilization is the only real important open question at Snowmass,
not these silly, daffy and stupid exotica of earthquake-quicksand or
early humans cacheing mastodons in lakes.
Sorry if I railed against geologists for I see now that it is
biologists who came up with cacheing, when biologists should realize
that they have too much flights of silly imagination rather than
enough solid logic. Science should not be pandered to TV crowds
because fossilization is not as interesting as silly and stupid
earthquake-quicksand with cacheing. We do not want to sell science
because the real truth is rather boring, and so those wanting a TV
show give us this fake science. NOVA in the past decade has become
more and more fakery than science.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 7, 2012, 7:45:24 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 2:47 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Testing
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
rick++
Feb 8, 2012, 11:00:15 AM2/8/12
to
Only a few months since the ending the dig, much of the data is
preliminary and unanalyzed yet.
I'm a member of the the museum conducting the dig and periodically
hear talks on the subject. I heard the bearded guy with the grooved
bone (Stuckey) talk on Monday - no much new since NOVA.
The most interesting thing he said is they could return for another
batch of digging in a few years, should questions and funds warrant.
The newly built reservoir protects the dig site. It could be
temporarily drained again.
preliminary and unanalyzed yet.
I'm a member of the the museum conducting the dig and periodically
hear talks on the subject. I heard the bearded guy with the grooved
bone (Stuckey) talk on Monday - no much new since NOVA.
The most interesting thing he said is they could return for another
batch of digging in a few years, should questions and funds warrant.
The newly built reservoir protects the dig site. It could be
temporarily drained again.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 8, 2012, 3:30:18 PM2/8/12
to
NOVA show
at the moment where they were talking about sand at the height of the
mastodon
ankle. Whether I missed 15 minutes of the program or what? Anyway, I
did not see
the full program. I did see the part where they made this earthquake-
quicksand
model.
Rick, can you help provide a modern day lake that would be similar to
this Snowmass
Colorado lake during the time of the Mastodons. Would Jackson lake of
Teton Wyoming
be the similar lake that Snowmass was during the time of the
mastodons?
Jackson lake has a dam near the Grand Teton Lodge and during the
winter I saw moose near the dam break through the ice and their
carcass body drown and clinging near the edge of the ice water
boundary. I saw bears on TV rush out onto a ice-water boundary to pull
out a antelope and eat what was remaining. So that I think the grooves
in the one bone are easily explained as a mastodon fell through the
ice and was partly hanging on to the ice and a predator like a bear
went out and ate most of it leaving a groove mark on one bone.
As for the mass death of many mastodons, a weak ice center of the lake
would have had a troop of mastodon go out on the ice and break it and
many of them drowned.
I do not know if beavers were around during this mastodon death and
whether beavers could have dammed up the lake.
Rick, what I am asking is can you tell me what modern day lake would
be a best similar lake to what this Snowmass mastodon lake was?
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 9, 2012, 3:13:04 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 2:30 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
It would be interesting to see what type of beavers were present
during the mastodons at
this death trap ice age lake. And whether beavers could dam up a large
lake? I do not know
if the world had large beavers back in the time of the mastodons.
And recently was a NATURE program on wolverines. I do not know what
scavengers that ate bones were present during that mastodon death
trap. I suppose wolverines were there, but were
there larger sized wolverines? I suppose nothing like hyenas were
present in the Americas during those mastodons.
So can we compare the grooves or notches in that one bone with the
teeth of wolverines or the teeth of bears?
I am not sure how wolverines manage to eat bones. Seems rather
difficult for me to imagine how the bones of one animal is strong
enough to eat the bones of another animal. Someone ought to research
that puzzle. Are the teeth of wolverine and hyenas so special that
they can eat bones?
I repeat me earlier question, as to what lake in the world today would
compare similar to this lake where the mastodons died in that death
trap. Would Jackson Lake of Grand Teton National Park compare similar
in climate or size of lake?
If it does, then was Snowmass Colorado some sort of mountainous pass
or causeway between east and west USA during that time of the
mastodons that they had no choice but to take that route in that
mountain pass. And then one late autumn they had a lake freeze over
and many mastodon ventured out on the ice and because of the numbers,
broke the ice and most drowned.
I wonder if we have some means of death forensics to tell if the
fossil bones of an animal can tell if the animal died by drowning? Or
in the case of the speculation of earthquake-quicksand, they would
have died by starvation or lack of water.
during the mastodons at
this death trap ice age lake. And whether beavers could dam up a large
lake? I do not know
if the world had large beavers back in the time of the mastodons.
And recently was a NATURE program on wolverines. I do not know what
scavengers that ate bones were present during that mastodon death
trap. I suppose wolverines were there, but were
there larger sized wolverines? I suppose nothing like hyenas were
present in the Americas during those mastodons.
So can we compare the grooves or notches in that one bone with the
teeth of wolverines or the teeth of bears?
I am not sure how wolverines manage to eat bones. Seems rather
difficult for me to imagine how the bones of one animal is strong
enough to eat the bones of another animal. Someone ought to research
that puzzle. Are the teeth of wolverine and hyenas so special that
they can eat bones?
I repeat me earlier question, as to what lake in the world today would
compare similar to this lake where the mastodons died in that death
trap. Would Jackson Lake of Grand Teton National Park compare similar
in climate or size of lake?
If it does, then was Snowmass Colorado some sort of mountainous pass
or causeway between east and west USA during that time of the
mastodons that they had no choice but to take that route in that
mountain pass. And then one late autumn they had a lake freeze over
and many mastodon ventured out on the ice and because of the numbers,
broke the ice and most drowned.
I wonder if we have some means of death forensics to tell if the
fossil bones of an animal can tell if the animal died by drowning? Or
in the case of the speculation of earthquake-quicksand, they would
have died by starvation or lack of water.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2016, 1:13:11 AM2/21/16
to
AP
plutonium....@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2016, 11:58:51 PM2/21/16
to
Now I write this because of no new information on Ice Age Death Trap with its hypothesis of quicksand struck by lightning, as a rather silly stupid explanation but an explanation that garners huge instant flash attention by the science community.
I write this because of a habit of many perhaps most scientists who would rather opt for Flash Fame yet a false theory, would opt for that rather than opt for a No Fame Notoriety yet a true theory to explain the events.
I write this because sand in a mountainous lake is farfetched and more farfetched is quicksand with lightning, whereas Occam's Razor --the most simple explanation usually turns out to be the true explanation. The most simple explanation is many animals fall through ice in winter and drown.
I write this also because in physics, at this moment we have another stupid silly theory of gravity waves from distant two black holes, when all of that is by Occam's razor easily explained as two nearby stars or two nearby galaxies producing those waves.
So, what I am trying to point out is that so very often, scientists opt out of logical commonsense reasoning just so that some fake theory is offered for it grabs the immediate attention of the entire world and makes Flash Fame of the scientists, even though some years down the road, they will be found out as fakesters of science theory.
And, also recently a Cal Tech pair of scientists claimed to have evidence of a Neptune sized planet beyond Pluto, where the PBS Newshour Brown asked them how in the world can you spot small objects making devious orbits and not spot the planet itself? In other words, the reporter had more commonsense logic than the scientists. But here again, the Flash Fame is more important to many scientists than it is to "get things right".
So few scientists seem to ever use Occam's Razor before they make these splashy silly fame seeking announcements.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
0 new messages