Taken for a Michigan Ride?

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
About 15 years or more ago, I wrote an article titled "Melting the Laurentide Ice Sheet" in which I calculated and revealed that the reason for the melting was excess summer heat from Siberia. The Milankovich cycles then provided hot summers and cold - and therefore dry - winters, meaning that there would be little snow buildup on the Ice Sheet during the remaining 9 months of the year, leading to an overall melting. (Cool summers and warmer winters lead to the opposite situation). I submitted to a journal which wanted certain corrections and additions - I did these but my paper was then too long for that journal's format. However, in the meantime I had found other data that I could not explain so abandoned any further venture here.

At the time it was believed that the Younger Dryas (YD) was due to the sudden discharge of Lake Agassiz, adjacent to the Laurentide Ice Sheet, draining down the Hudson River and cooling the Atlantic Ocean, preventing the normal warming of Europe by halting the Atlantic Conveyor under the Gulf Stream as well as that stream itself. Indeed the YD is now regarded as the prime event initiating the Holocene, separating it from the prehistoric big-animal-filled Pleistocene.

Having seen Lake Pukaki and its old glacier bed in NZ (all on the drive to the Hermitage below Mt Cook), I knew that that glacier had NOT undergone any YD advance, so I believed the conventional YD story. However, when I looked at further articles I found that the Younger Dryas cooling involved the Patagonian Ice Sheet and even a temporary increase of glaciation in the Colorado Rockies. As the land revealed by the drained Lake Agassiz should have undergone rapid warming since this is independent of Atlantic Ocean cooling, this, coupled to a warm Siberia should also have prevented the YD glacial advance in the Colorado Rockies! When I realized these facts I also realized that the YD had some other cause though I had no idea what it could be as dating at that period was rather confused.

Hence it was only 6 months ago that I came across the "black layer" story and the discovery of the Nebraska Rainwater Basins - mysterious oval shapes detected by radar. These, added to the better known elliptical 'Carolina Bays', visible even on Google Earth, finally allowed researchers to take into account the Coriolis Effect and reveal the origin of these mysterious elliptical structures. They point to a source over what is now Saginaw Bay in Michigan. The present view is that the Carolina Bays and Nebraska Rainwater Basins were due to large chunks of ice, shattered from the Laurentide Ice Sheet by a meteor strike over the Saginaw ice! The articles say that the ice would have taken only nine minutes to reach Carolina - a wild Michigan Ride indeed! Hence too there may have been other meteors, a veritable meteor shower upon the Americas and Europe - though leaving the rest of the world less battered. (Whether the Hiawatha Crater in northern Greenland is involved here is uncertain to me).

Having looked at Saginaw Bay on Google Earth I see some obvious anomalies - which land clearance has revealed - but I cannot find articles detailing research on the ground here. Such articles should arrive soon however as universities, such as at Ann Arbor, are not too far away. Something to watch out for, now that humanity has the capacity to replicate such a blow with nuclear weapons!

There seems to be much hostility to this idea (the meteor strikes, not the nukes) still - but now I am forced to agree with it for other reasons. E.g. why would Amerindians exterminate horses, since they were a store of food for them, like buffaloes, antelopes etc.? That other animals like mammoths, giant sloths and mastodons went extinct at this time is certainly good evidence that the people, desperate after the meteor strike which caused fires everywhere, would hunt down and kill whatever survived to try to ensure their own survival. The meteor strike seems to have occurred just after the Clovis Period began, implying that big game animals were multiplying rapidly, hence the use of big spears to bring them down. Even the predators died off - American lions/tigers, sabre-tooths, dire wolves, cheetah-like pumas, short-faced bears (mainly vegetarian) etc. - and the deaths seem disproportionately North American too, leaving animals like pronghorns whose running ability exceeds any local predator's today.

I accept this now because it also explains the human paradox between North and South Amerindians. Only those who live in South America show genetic markers otherwise associated with Australian Aborigines. There are many stupid ideas about migration between the two continents via the Pacific Ocean, but this clearly did not occur since NZ was not inhabited until 1200AD! The answer here is that the Americas had an archaic human population (over 60,000 years ago of non-modern humans with large brow ridges - their genes shared with other largely archaic people such as Australian Aborigines). Indeed, as you can see from my paper on modern humans, there is evidence for archaic humans in the Americans - studiously ignored by researchers even though another such site has appeared in San Diego.

Hence I conclude that most of the people in North America were actually killed by the YD impact and resulting fires, leaving the relevant genetic markers only in South American people. The migration of later people across the Bering Strait would be favoured over migration across Central America by the disease gradient - e.g. resistance to malaria and other Old World diseases which could readily have crossed from Asia, brought unwittingly by the new immigrants.

(The bolded section I report as an original conclusion of my own, since I have not read such a statement elsewhere). I wonder what the researchers will come up with in following years?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Your post inspired me to do a search and I found this interesting critique (which I have only skimmed so far) of the mechanism claims of Firestone et al. in their The Cycles of Cosmic Catastrophes. The author agrees with the data regarding the event, but not what caused the event.

In any case, "beware the Ides of March" (adjusted for precession, of course).

Also, here are some more related posts from Postflaviana: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?search/3345/&q=Younger+Dryas&o=date

I accept this now because it also explains the human paradox between North and South Amerindians. Only those who live in South America show genetic markers otherwise associated with Australian Aborigines. There are many stupid ideas about migration between the two continents via the Pacific Ocean, but this clearly did not occur since NZ was not inhabited until 1200AD! The answer here is that the Americas had an archaic human population (over 60,000 years ago of non-modern humans with large brow ridges - their genes shared with other largely archaic people such as Australian Aborigines). Indeed, as you can see from my paper on modern humans, there is evidence for archaic humans in the Americans - studiously ignored by researchers even though another such site has appeared in San Diego.
It is now clear that massive human civilizations existed throughout the Americas, as well as likely under the present Sahara Desert (when it had water and vast lakes). Discussed in the last link are some rather amazing cultural linkages which seem consistent to me with Diffusionism, and similarly I think from cultural linkages there was indeed a late ocean migration across the Pacific that reached Alaska. Albeit too late to give rise to the civilizations being uncovered by slash and burn farmers of today in the Amazon and such. These later American 'Indians', including the Incas, do not claim the prior structures as their own. And, the Maoris admit that there were anomalous (according to Uniformitarian orthodoxy) white people living in NZ when they arrived.
 
Last edited:
Top