Shockwave pattern of The Mississippi Embayment

I have way more than enough to find further. The point in this bother is to find all the complex [yes, that other meaning] geological data, that is beyond my means.
So, again, if you would know of a geologist with enough interest, honesty, intelligence, integrity, passion for the truth, and happens to be in the position to collect and verify samples of cometary impactites, could you let me know?
Apparently this is a very rare person! :-]

Don't know how I overlooked this before, but I was sure there were some LiDARs of Tennessee? So, apparently none of Mississippi or Tennessee. What is up with that? ;-]

Still, the only LiDARs I see near the area are the ones that I was talking about, they just did a few months ago for The Weaubleau Crater in Southeastern Missouri, from Paragouldm Arkansas to Poplar Bluffs, Mo. [on the west side of the "Boothill"]
Do you see any others near?

I don't need you to tell me how to understand history. You came up with a loony tunes claim that your comet caused an earthquake in late 1811, the defeat of Napoleon in Russia in late 1812, the burning of Washington in the summer of 1814, and the battle of New Orleans in January, 1815. Now you're just passing over all of that in silence while you attempt to lecture me on understanding history, and spouting an irrelevancy such as the effect of comets on vintages of wine.

You're peddling bullshit, and then changing the subject when that is pointed out to you. You're also trying to get FM to do your work for you, when you're not actually contradicting someone who does geology for a living and has done for decades. Oh, wouldn't you love to get FM to provide you with some more cover for your bullshit thesis.

so all geologists are scoundrels eh? You know we are all required to take a blood oath to Our Lord Satan.



Are there any out there that you havent already alienated? Calling someone dishonest to their face when you consult them is usually not a great way to start a relationship. Maybe Im wrong on that but Ill stick with that assumption.

I think he just wants to pick peoples' brains to punch-up the material in this bullshit story he's peddling. Earlier, using all caps to shout, he said that the British were not weak. I was going to respond in a detailed manner to show him he's full of it, but then i thought, no, he'll just use that to attempt to perfect his line of crap. It is easy to show that the British were weak in North America, and particularly that they were in no position to support Tecumseh's chimerical vision of an Indian confederacy to drive the white man out of the Ohio valley. But if i gave him the details, he'd just cherry pick information to support his loony thesis.

Im certain he is cherry picking his data because it took me less than five minutes and got to a site with ll thetree ring data that goes right through the pre New Madrid event and beyond.
As I said, there are tree ring data that start in the 1600's and a few from the late 1500's. Tree ring data has been of major interest to the seismic research clan for many years. There are paleoecologists that have been looking at how the earthquake was felt extensively and what it did to various species (some trees were actually stilumated into growing more quickly for up to 50 years after the quake) ,Other trees were stunted for a decade or more. The fact is , however, many specimen trees were alive all the way before and after the quake, (Kinda doesnt make a good story in support of an earthquake starting bolide that shocked the neighborhood quartz grains and left a big crater that was quickly filled in by liquefaction.

SOmetimes data doesnt all support a quickly developed idea. (I actually sympathize with trhis guy cause I had several similar grand ideas in my career) However, you dont publis these "hunches" without a basket load of supportive data and evidence that DOES NOT contradict it.

Ive looked up LIDAR photos and found a site on the USGS web that has available shots and "hillshade" enhancement that shows us the areas around and inside the NMSZ. There are several areas that show two streams going around a structure . It can be confused with an impact zone, but LIDAR shows these as mound ares a with no ejecta rims anywhere . In those areas there are tree ring data from trees that existed well before NM.

There is a sample of Shocked quartz near the NMSZ from really deep (overlain by strata of NO SHOCKED QUARTZ. These samples are from what Bill Glass called the North AMerican STrewn Field and are from the EOCENE .(No help there)

Im not gonna share the links with this guy cause I think tht hed just cite thm and then dismiss them with his untrained mind. Hes gathered up a lot of the jargon of the trade but he has not internalized a degree of honesty that should lead his inquiries
He has ignored the prime directive of discovery in science,

"Hold lightly to your theories , but hold tightly to your facts, for facts will always change our theories"

Well, back to the lambs

Because you do not understand the effects of massive amounts of cometary material, that you do not even realize impacted, on weather patterns, does not mean it did not occur.

You have made the same statement again. C/1811 F1 was named "Napolean's Comet" because almost all the people of Europe and Russia had agreed that the comet caused the extreme Russian winter that decimated his troops [they were correct]. Did you think that was my idea, or that I was alone in this thinking? This shows your knowledge of these events!

So, better study further before any more snide remarks! ;-]

Never called anyone dishonest, just that I am looking for someone that is honest and has all the other qualities to verify this research...

Your misinterpretations show a lack of research capability. Can you please try not "putting words in my mouth"? :-]

Historian? Did you study The War of 1812, at all? The British were burning the capitol. There was no one to stop them. The ONLY thing that made them retreat was a tornado spun off by a hurricane. It killed more British soldiers than the Colonists. The hurricane and tornado was the result of a comet causing quakes, eruptions, and unusual weather patterns all over the globe.
[so, I guess they were weak against nature?:-]

I have already proven to you the effects of a close comet's passing. There is plenty of research to back my findings. I gave you links. Show me your proof it did not cause strange weather. NO!, yes, that is the way it works. Unless you do not understand the scientific method, as well? :-]

Come on now, who is foolin' who? Come up off the links or "Silence Your Lambs" :-]

I gave you the info. to understand the facts and what really occurred and you have misinterpretted, distorted, disregarded, and ignored each and every detail. Take off the blinders and read up on the facts.

There are NO LiDARs of this structure and there are NO trees near two hundred years old anywere near here [I can prove this, can you?]. I live here. I go outside every morning and can easily see the crater rim. It is so obvious that all the rolling hills begin at this spot. I look at the pile of the strangest rocks and wonder what is wrong with geologists and historians.

This information has been out for going on four years now, with such little or no result. I believe this speaks volumes about society and the scientific community. The comments I have recieved are just another shiney example of the amount of ignorance that still exists

Should I just allow you all to exist in your delusions? :-]

Source

The surrenders of the members of the Grand Army were a result of the breakdown of the logistical system, not extreme cold. You may not be alone in your thinking, but a superfluity of idiots never surprises me. Just ecause someone calls it Napoleon's comet doesn't mean it was responsible for all of the hilarious bullshit you are claiming.

At Detroit in 1812, Brock's force was decidedly inferior to Hull's force. Hull lost his nerve and surrendered to an inferior force. The number of Americans captured was almost twice the size of the force to which Hull surrendered. Brock then had to rush east to confront the American invasion. He foolishly lead an attack uphill at Queenston, and was killed for his trouble. That battle was won by the British, but only because of the attack of the Mohawk contingent, and after most of the New York militia had already retreated over the Niagara River. Subsequently, American forces invaded and occupied the Niagara peninsula, and the British were never able to dislodge them.

Back in the west, William Henry Harrison marched into northwest Ohio, constructed a fort, and successfully fought off two sieges. Tecumseh's Shawnees suffered heavy casualties, and Harrison drove off the British and retook Detroit. He then crossed the Detroit River and drove east, finally meeting and defeating the British and their Indian allies at the Battle of the Thames near the site of the modern-day London, Ontario. That was seen as the most decisive battle of the war after the battle of New Orleans. At the battle of the Thames, the British had 800 regulars and 500 Indians. Harrison's Americans out numbered them by almost three to one. That was where Tecumseh was killed. To repeat, the British were too weak a reed for the Indians to rely on their support to drive out the Americans.

At the high point of the wars with Napoleon, the British army only numbered somewhat over 200,000 men. The largest single contingent were the troops in the Iberian peninsula under Wellington. It was precisely because their army was so heavily involved in Spain that they had insufficient troops to send to North America. The British were driven out of western Upper Ontario, and never returned after the battle of the Thames. For all practical purposes, the Indians were f*cked in relying on British support.

The troops released after Napoleon's first surrender in the spring of 1814 were the ones who burned Washington. They didn't retreat because of any bullshit weather events that you're making up, they retreated because they were too small in number and didn't have the logistical support necessary to sustain a large force on land in Maryland and Virginia. There were only 4000 red coats, and probably fewer, at Bladensburg, the battle known as the greatest disgrace to American arms in our history. The British suffered far higher casualties than did the Americans, and many of those were from heat exhaustion. Yes, they burned Washington, and then they had to retreat to Cochrane's fleet, because they didn't have the supplies to sustain their troops, and they would soon be outnumbered as more and more American regulars were rushed to Maryland.

Most of Wellington's troops who had been shipped across the Atlantic were sent to Canada to try to stem the threat of the continued American occupation of the Niagara peninsula. They managed to force a stalemate, but they were unable to drive the Americans out--and they were the best that the British had to offer.

At New Orleans, Jackson had fewer than 5000 men at his disposal, and the Kentucky Militia on the west bank of the river ran away. Nevertheless, Jackson handed the red coats (of whom there were more than 10,000) a decisive defeat, including the death of Packenham, the commander. Total British casualties equaled nearly a quarter of their force, and more British troops were killed than the entire tally of American killed, wounded and missing.

In short, you don't know a goddamned thing about the history, so you just make up some bullshit about cometary effects. That was quite an active comet, allegedly causing an earthquake in 1811, allegedly causing Napoleon's defeat in 1812, allegedly responsible for the British retreat from Washington in 1814, and allegedly responsible for Jackson's victory at New Orleans in 1815. Funny how no reputable scientists seem to know about the comet that just wouldn't leave. You continue to fail to address how this comet was supposed to have affected events for more than three and years.

The British were a weak reed in North America, upon whom the Indians were unwise to rely. It cost them thousands of lives, including the life of Tecumseh himself. You're an ignorant bullshit artist.

Ironically, we are just a little over a month away from the 200th anniversary of the battle of York. At the end of April, 1813, an American fleet appeared on Lake Ontario, off the village of York. They landed, won a brief, pitched battle, and occupied York for six days. While they were in York, they burned the parliament buildings. I guess the British weren't strong enough to defend York--which is today called Toronto.

Te "breakdown of the logistical system" was because of the cold weather. They starved in Moscow because they could not get supllies. do you even understand simple literature?

The French were not even near the same latitude in 1705 and 1807.

You are the type with the "stuck blinders". Regardless of their "idiot" moves, the weather was the biggest factor. Why do you think they were starving. [deserves another-duh!] :-]

I understand that you have a simple-minded view of history based on massive ignorance. They starved in Moscow for two reasons: the first was that the French did not take simple precautions against fire, and so a city of a million, built of wood and abandoned inevitably burned down, destroying their shelter and any food stores they might otherwise have had; the second reason was that they had a supply line hundreds of miles long which they were unable to defend. You didn't bother to read the linked material, did you. The winter of 1812-13 was not unusually cold, and, in fact, did not even drop below freezing until well aster the retreat had begun.

In 1807, the French defeated the Russians at the battle of Friedland, which not only was near the same latitude as Moscow, but was almost on an east-west line with Moscow. You show your ignorance yet again.

In 1705, not only was Napoleon not around, it would be 64 years until he was born. What an idiot.

One of the main factors in Tecumseh's defeat was the loss of The Chickasaw, who would have more than likely joined him to easily defeat the settlers, as there were many thousand Chickasaw Warriors takem out by this impact, also, more bad decisions.

You know, this is easy to look up: http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/hurricane-of-providence-saved-washington-dc-and-perhaps-the-nation/
Read up- Madison called the British "scoundrels". Here is a quote "So, without the hurricane of Providence , maybe there would not have been a Star Spangled Banner."!
So, What did you say? ;-]

You haven't demonstrated that there was an impact so that claim is bullshit. So what if a hurricane hit the east coast? That's not evidence that you cometary bullshit is valid. People have survived worse, the British pulled out because the could not sustain a force on land in those circumstances. As usual, you've got nothing.

None of your babbling here addresses the fact that the Indians were fools to rely on the weak reed of British support. Go read up on the battle of the Thames, and tell me again the the British were not weak. You're just trying to divert the conversation because you know you've lost it.

First, I never said Napolean in 1705, I said Then French [another duh]
And, Your "supply chain" theory problem was not only due to the many miles, which were much less of a factor than the inclimate weather, which, although most of the general public and most historians have come to agreement with, you seem to somehow not understand facts in your face.

Your understanding of factual events is a distortion to history. Stop spreading your ignorance. EVERYONE knows how the weather was a facrtor, [duh]

I see no point to go further with such immature, childish reactions to facts. This is the same problem with the little children that are apparently in charge at C.E.R.I. In the long run, their ignorance will be a stain on there existance. I say, good luck in all the denial [Quick, swim to reality! ;-]]]]...

What the hell do the French in 1705 have to do with 1811, or 1812, or 1814 or 1815, when you claim your magical mystery comet was wreaking havoc on human events? "Everyone knows" is a classic argumentum ad populum fallacy. No, everyone does not know that--no one well-informed about the events claims that. The French army was in full retreat before the temperatures even dropped below freezing. You still have not read the quote which i provided and linked above, have you? Read it, one of the people quoted points out that the weather was much more severe in 1807 at Friedland, when the French defeated the Russians. You don't know a goddamned thing about history.

In fact, in the early 18th century (since you seem to be a little slow, i'll point out that that covers 1705), the winters were far more severe. That was during the War of the Spanish Succession, another significant portion of European history i'll bet you've never heard of.