SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 366.09-0.1%Nov 6 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dvdw© who wrote (147710)4/10/2019 4:59:23 PM
From: Snowshoe  Read Replies (1) of 217557
 
Depalma et al....who is et al?
The article you commented on is a journalist's preview of the scientific paper released on Monday, April 1st by DePalma and his co-authors. It's about the Tanis fossil site...

A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota
pnas.org

Tanis (fossil site)
en.wikipedia.org



Fossil fish from Tanis. The fossil shows microtektites (molten splattered glass droplets) which are a chemical match for ejecta from the Chicxulub meteor crater. The microtektites are concentrated in large numbers in the gill rakers of about 50% of sturgeon and paddlefish fossils, and show that the fish were alive at the time that the impact occurred.

Its unlikely that Chicx is responsible, as the 4 events pointed too, are far closer, and each were significant enough in their own right, to have dispersed the microtekties,
The microtektites found at the Tanis site match the Chicxulub event, not the other events you mentioned.

DePalma and his colleagues have spent years studying the Tanis site, and present compelling evidence to back up their conclusions. I's hard for me to consider your alternate interpretation unless you back it up with evidence.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext