Mammoth die-off

20 Jun 2012

At www.phenomenica.com/2012/06/mammoth-graveyard-uncovered-in-serbia/ is just the latest report on the discovery of mammoth remains from around the northern hemisphere - this time in Serbia. They are regularly encountered in the UK during construction work - and just as regularly not reported to the authorities. The same thing goes on everywhere. Geologists and Paleontologists poking around slows down commercial enterprise, whether a housing scheme or major road building. Only the odd discovery is reported to the local museum, council, or relevant government department. Even a hundred years ago construction bosses would not have favoured reporting such finds. For example, lots of stuff was found when the railways were being built - especially in cuttings through hills and elevations, and the same must be true of road construction - but is rarely reported unless the archaeologists and geologists have access to the routes beforehand. Lots of mammoth remains came to light after people died and their heirs found the odd tusk collected by a site worker - or sold on to a collector.

At www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A312-Frozen_Mammoths.txt there is a 29 page essay on frozen mammoths and mammoth remains elsewhere. Did you know that oilmen, drilling at Prudhoe Bay in the high Arctic, found an assemblage of trees between 1100 and 1700 feet down - 600 feet of fossil trees and vegetation. Presumably they accumulated on more than one occasion. Did you know muck covers one seventh of the land surface surrounding the Arctic Ocean - I don't know if this is true but if it is that is remarkable. This is basically a treeless and very flat environment - so where did all the muck come from? Russian scientists are reputed to have drilled 4000 feet down and not reached the bottom of a muck deposit. Islands in the Arctic Ocean appear to be made out of bones - not just of mammoths but all kinds of herbivores of the Ice Ages, and their predators. 

 

The link to this piece was in the comments section of a climate discussion. I wasn't going to bother looking at it but a little later another commenter advised people 'not to believe a word of it' and my curiosity got the better. Why would a 'defender of the faith' not want people to read something? It must mean it contains evidence they found embarrassing - and indeed, it does. I advise everyone to dip their toes into what appears to be a Creationist web site with a long list of articles on different subjects. The author appears to have done his homework. That is all I can say. A curtain of mist has been drawn across the demise of the mammoths. The consensus view is that there is not a lot worth looking at - they clearly died at different times and not in one single die-off event. Hence, there was no massive catastrophic event, or polar shift, as they were clearly in decline - only a remnant surviving into the Bolling-Allerod warming when they were subsequently snuffed out by the Younger Dryas cooling event. A sort of clever tactic of the uniformitarians and consensus defenders of the faith is to use that fact to debunk the Younger Dryas boundary event people - but the YDB people do not actually claim anything of the sort. Its a red herring put in there to persuade the uncommitted and reassure the faithful. In fact, the repetitive use of this meme, mammoths died out on multiple occasions, is quite useful from a catastrophist viewpoint as it allows us to look at the real evidence. It may suit uniformitarians to ignore the evidence in the ground - and concentrate on the inconsequential element. There is a concerted effort not to see catastrophism - at any cost. What they do is to concentrate on one or two mammoths and treat the issue from an individual angle, not as a collective issue. There are hundreds of thousands of mammoth remains, preserved in the Arctic and found almost everywhere from the North Sea to the Chukchi peninsular, Alaska, and across the US from Iowa to Wyoming, from Oregon to Wisconsin. It is no wonder that Creationists find them a fertile fact of life to disparage uniformitarian skulduggery. Mammoths caught the public imagination - and still do. However, if you read the consensus version of events you would think only the odd mammoth carcass had been dug up. Okay, complete carcasses may be rare but remains of mammoth with soft parts intact is common. Remains of mammoth without soft parts attached are colossal in scale - completely numberless. However, they do not originate from a single catastrophic event - that is obvious. A variety of dates are in order. Indeed, as with temperature rise and fall in the Late Pleistocene, we actually have evidence of repeated catastrophic incidents, something they don't want you to consider - and something that is not properly addressed in the debate about the Younger Dryas boundary event. There was no massive catastrophic event. Instead, the evidence suggests a series of events - consistent with the Clube and Napier theory and consistent with the Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith book, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes.