Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Ancient human settlement destroyed by comet?

Recommended Posts

Eldorado
Posted (edited)

"An archaeological site is known as the Abu Hureyra, located in modern-day Syria, is famous for being one of the world's first human settlements, where early nomadic people started building homes and cultivating crops.

"Now, scientists have found how it fell--a cosmic impact.

"The site is now under Lake Assad. Still, fortunately, archaeologists were able to gather enough evidence from the site before it went underwater and were able to discover melt glass along with proof of grains and animal bones."

Full monty at Tech Times: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/247867/20200309/evidence-reveals-cosmic-impact-wiped-out-early-human-settlements.htm

And Phys Org: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-evidence-cosmic-impact-destruction-world.html

"Evidence of Cosmic Impact at Abu Hureyra, Syria at the Younger Dryas Onset (~12.8 ka): High-temperature melting at >2200°C"

Research at Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60867-w

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Piney

 

Quote

These fragments are all part of the same comet that likely slammed into Earth and exploded in the atmosphere at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, according to Kennett. This impact contributed to the extinction of most large animals, including mammoths, and American horses and camels; the disappearance of the North American Clovis culture; and to the abrupt onset of the end-glacial Younger Dryas cooling episode.

bull****!!! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Quote

 Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) strewnfield

Doesn't exist. It's a cobble of strewnfields from various impacts some thousands and millions of years apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
8 minutes ago, Piney said:

Doesn't exist. It's a cobble of strewnfields from various impacts some thousands and millions of years apart. 

Even with that I have to wonder how an impactor at Abu Hureyra circa 12,800 BP/10,800 BC meshes with previous evidence showing that the location was inhabited in two phases circa 9500 BC - 5000 BC? A 1300 year abandonment from this earlier date, or a slightly different location for AH afterwards perhaps? 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
19 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

bull****!!! 

yeah I think we discussed the Younger Dryus just last year...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, cormac mac airt said:

Even with that I have to wonder how an impactor at Abu Hureyra circa 12,800 BP/10,800 BC meshes with previous evidence showing that the location was inhabited in two phases circa 9500 BC - 5000 BC? A 1300 year abandonment from this earlier date, or a slightly different location for AH afterwards perhaps? 

cormac

Kennett made some outright untruthful statements about the YDI before. such as " large areas of burnt biomass" "mass dieoff of megafauna" and "Clovis disappearance".

He also worked with George Howard, who "salted" sites up and down the East Coast of the U.S. 

I have a whole list of Kennett's false statements. That's just the tip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 minutes ago, joc said:

yeah I think we discussed the Younger Dryus just last year...

I think I debunked it every time it appeared here. Then again, I was one of the field guys looking for it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, Piney said:

Kennett made some outright untruthful statements about the YDI before. such as " large areas of burnt biomass" "mass dieoff of megafauna" and "Clovis disappearance".

He also worked with George Howard, who "salted" sites up and down the East Coast of the U.S. 

I have a whole list of Kennett's false statements. That's just the tip. 

That's all true Piney but doesn't necessitate the belief that said impactor "had to have" anything to do with the YDI debate. That all smacks of an attempt to clump multiple different events into the same timeframe in order to forward an agenda. That's not science IMO. 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
22 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

That's all true Piney but doesn't necessitate the belief that said impactor "had to have" anything to do with the YDI debate. That all smacks of an attempt to clump multiple different events into the same timeframe in order to forward an agenda. That's not science IMO. 

cormac

I know.

Here's a partial list of the impacts who's strewnfields have been misclassified as part of the YDI to further Kennett's agenda. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaali_crater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_Canyon_impact_crater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_impact_crater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popigai_crater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nördlinger_Ries

Here's one of the ones I worked with Bonofiglio on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_tektite_strewn_field

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal

Abu Hureyra

@Piney

Still making news articles months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
11 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

Abu Hureyra

@Piney

Still making news articles months later.

I feel I've debunked that enough times on here. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Piney said:

I feel I've debunked that enough times on here. :yes:

I watched a documentary where they excavated a fossil ice age pond in the Midwest to discover it had become a deathtrap for a number of mammoths during an earthquake that had turn it into a sticky mire around them. As they dug down around the upright skeletons, slabs of rock just at the right level to stand on and butcher the animals were discovered. Bones with obvious butcher marks were also unearthed. When one of the paleontologists pointed out these evidences of human presence there was an uncomfortable silence and mutterings of consternation. You see, the bones had already been dated far earlier than the accepted date of man's presence in North America. They didn't want to get involved in an outstanding dispute going on between their archaeologist colleagues. So it was brushed aside and supposedly debunked. One of my paleontologist friends at UT said this sort of thing happened far more frequently than anyone suspects. Evidence perfectly and scientifically accept able in Europe is brushed aside in North America. Only the Rosetta Stone of Archaeology, unambiguous human remains, will be enough to settle the dispute.

  

 

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Piney
5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Bones with obvious butcher marks were also unearthed. When one of the paleontologists pointed out these evidences of human presence there was an uncomfortable silence and mutterings of consternation. You see, the bones had already been dated far earlier than the accepted date of man's presence in North America. They didn't want to get involved in an outstanding dispute going on between their archaeologist colleagues. So it was brushed aside and supposedly debunked. One of my paleontologist friends at UT said this sort of thing happened far more frequently than anyone suspects. Evidence perfectly and scientifically accept able in Europe is brushed aside in North America. Only the Rosetta Stone of Archaeology, unambiguous human remains, will be enough to settle the dispute.

The "butcher cuts" are because the bones were beat up in moving water against rocks and that's what happen frequently with all the glacial flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
58 minutes ago, Piney said:

The "butcher cuts" are because the bones were beat up in moving water against rocks and that's what happen frequently with all the glacial flooding.

Yeah and were so conveniently placed precisely where they were needed. They dug down several feet to get to the layer where the mammoths were, and the rocks were and placed nowhere else. North America is a backward corner of archaeology, where they stop digging at the depth dogma dictates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 North America is a backward corner of archaeology, where they stop digging at the depth dogma dictates. 

Funny, I was never told to do that. 

*Always go 6 ft past known occupation* was the rule dictated by Herb Kraft, Alan Mounier, Tony Bonofiglio, Jack Cresson, Jay Custer, Alan Carman and @Swede

Every one of them would of, or would want a paradigm shift and prove a earlier occupation along with many other archaeologists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
54 minutes ago, Piney said:

Funny, I was never told to do that. 

*Always go 6 ft past known occupation* was the rule dictated by Herb Kraft, Alan Mounier, Tony Bonofiglio, Jack Cresson, Jay Custer, Alan Carman and @Swede

Every one of them would of, or would want a paradigm shift and prove a earlier occupation along with many other archaeologists. 

If you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.