Hole in Asteroid Belt Reveals Extinction Asteroid

eldavojohn writes "Further evidence for the asteroid mass extinction theory has been discovered as a break in the main asteroid belt of our solar system. From the article, "A joint U.S.-Czech team from Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and Charles University in Prague suggests that the parent object of asteroid (298) Baptistina disrupted when it was hit by another large asteroid, creating numerous large fragments that would later create the Chicxulub crater on the Yucatan Peninsula as well as the prominent Tycho crater found on the Moon.""

Comments

Alternative theories???

[click2005]

a break in the main asteroid belt of our solar system

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was making meatballs gets my vote.

Cue The Godfather violin music

[nizo]

At approximately 170 kilometers in diameter and having characteristics similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, the Baptistina parent body resided in the innermost region of the asteroid belt when it was hit by another asteroid estimated to be 60 kilometers in diameter. This catastrophic impact produced what is now known as the Baptistina asteroid family, a cluster of asteroid fragments with similar orbits.

Ok lets all hope we don't get another visit from the hit men of our solar system, the Baptistina family.

Re:Cue The Godfather violin music

[Junior J. Junior III]

Say, that's a real nice planet you got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it...

How to get mainstream coverage

[paleo2002]

If you want your obscure research paper to receive mainstream media coverage and net you loads of grant money, be sure to link your work to one or more of the following "hot topics":

meteor impact

dinosaurs

mass extinction

global warming

DNA

obesity

energy efficient cars

OK, fine. There's a gap in the asteroid belt indicating that several large objects were knocked loose some time in the past few million years. And, yes, those objects will be most likely to fall towards the Sun and insect the orbits of the inner planets. That doesn't mean you've found where the infamous dinosaur-killing meteor came from. That's pure speculation! That gap could just as easily been left by the meteor that caused the P/Tr extinction or by a meteor that hit Venus.

Re:How to get mainstream coverage

[Kupek]

You said, emphasis mine,

If you want your obscure research paper to receive mainstream media coverage and net you loads of grant money, be sure to link your work to one or more of the following "hot topics":

From the physorg write up,

The article, "An asteroid breakup 160 Myr ago as the probable source of the K/T impactor," was published in the Sept. 6 issue of Nature.

If you don't understand why this juxtaposition is funny, then you're not qualified to make fun of anyone's scientific research.

Re:hmm

[skoaldipper]

Timing is everything, which is the main thrust of this article I gather, linking that event to interesting moon and earth geological formations during the same epoch.

But, if Chicxulub was the 8 ball, and Baptistina the combo shot, I was left wondering at the end of my reading, what was the cue ball, and where was the pool stick? Of more concern, when does the best 2 out of 3 match take place?

No crap

[gerf]

Let's get some logic here:

1. There are more inter-system collisions than we realize. Example: Schoemaker-Levi

2. The Sun is bigger than Earth, and therefore would probably get hit 1000% (or more) more often. Example: eclipses show this quite easily

2.a Corollary: The Sun is the center of the Solar System, not Earth. Example: Copernicus

3. The big Yucatan collision happened millions of years ago, and since then things have moved a bit. We can't predict movement 10 years from now, much less 160 Million. Example: We still use Pork-Chop plots at NASA

4. They predict an impact 160 million years ago, 95 million years off the mark. Example: Dino fossils are as new as 65 million.

Overall, this isn't the most reliable of links and summaries in recent /. history. At least I haven't seen any Global Warming scarey articles in a while. Maybe the Firehose is working afterall?

Re:No crap

[Arabani]

4. They predict an impact 160 million years ago, 95 million years off the mark. Example: Dino fossils are as new as 65 million. They believe that the BREAKUP occurred 160 million years ago, not whatever wiped out the dinosaurs. It takes time for things to move from the asteroid belt to the Earth, you know.

Re:No crap

[Anonymous Coward]

2. The Sun is bigger than Earth, and therefore would probably get hit 1000% (or more) more often. Example: eclipses show this quite easily It would be extraordinarily hard for any object to hit the Sun. Only if an object was heading directly for the Sun as it entered the Solar System gravity well or if it originally had an extremely eccentric orbit would it be able to hit the Sun. This point may not be obvious to those who haven't studied physics, but the Solar System is a gravity well. If your goal is to hit the Sun (i.e. to touch the atmosphere where you will be aerodynamically decelerated/toasted), then you need to give up a lot of energy. Probes like MESSENGER that want to go into orbit around Mercury need to use more fuel than they would to escape the Solar System entirely.

From your point of view as a comet or other object in elliptical orbit around the Sun, if you wanted to actually collide with the Sun you would need to strike an object such that it sent you into an elliptical orbit with such a high eccentricity that your orbit passed through the atmosphere of the Sun. The probability of that happening is extremely remote. The probability of sending a collided object through the orbits of any of the planets is not.

For objects that are not orbiting the Sun when they are approaching (and can't be captured without a collision with a third body), your direction of approach has to be so finely positioned that those mythical sniper shots at 1 mile or more look trivial. In no case will the Sun's gravity make a collision more probable (or in the other case).

Re:No crap

[barakn]

Eclipses show this quite easily? What the heck is that supposed to mean? And pork chop plots show how much energy it will take for a spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity, place it on a course to another object, and capture it into orbit upon arrival as a function of different launch and arrival dates. They are most definitely not, as you seem to imply, some sort of error estimate for orbital trajectories. It's sad that you've decided to try to cast aspersions on research done by the Southwest Research Institute, as it is highly regarded in the field, and you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Re:No crap

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>We can't predict movement 10 years from now

NASA does it all the time for deep space probes, Halley's Comet returns are predicted many orbits in advance, and in general celestial mechanics is one of the most exact predictive disciplines. Even tiny deviations, such as those of Mercury's orbit (56 arc seconds per year!), are considered grounds for revising theories of gravity.

Re:No crap

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There are more inter-system collisions than we realize. Example: Schoemaker-Levi

Data is not the plural form of anecdote.

Re:No crap

[1u3hr]

2. The Sun is bigger than Earth, and therefore would probably get hit 1000% (or more) more often. Example: eclipses show this quite easily

WTF does an eclipse show? I hope you're not talking about sunspots, which have nothing to do with asteroids. 4. They predict an impact 160 million years ago, 95 million years off the mark.

RTFA. There was a series of impacts over millenia, Yucatan being the biggest, but not the first. Many of the earth grazers we see now may have originated in the same event.

At least I haven't seen any Global Warming scarey articles in a while. Maybe the Firehose is working afterall?

It's not news when it's a known fact. Seeing as how you willfully misinterpreted this article, I'm not surprsed you remain confused about that too.

Re:No crap

[rucs_hack]

For a bit of fun when I was running my solar system model a while back I tried to hit Sol with an asteroid. Its rather tricky, but it can be done if the velocity is low enough and you contrive an orbit. It's virtually impossible, at least I never managed it, to slingshot an object around one of the inner planets and hit the sun.

Yes, yes, I'm a geek, I have no life, I really spent days doing this [/sob]

There's the other thing though, define 'impact'. Most comets are icy, many asteroids are ice and shale. Put those close to the sun and you get vapour, and no more comet/asteroid. That would be an impact. my software can't do such things, but I probably got a few impacts of this type.

Incidentally altering the mass of the sun up to the Chandrasekhar limit doesn't mean any of the planets collapse into the sun, they all get ejected. Neptune gets into an orbit so elliptical and fast that I believe it would be stripped to whatever is at its core before it was finally ejected.

Re:No crap

[somersault]

While I've heard enough arguments on both sides as to not be sure any more (the best argument I've heard is about global warming on other planets, which shows that we're not really having as much of an effect as we thing we are), it seems that a lot of people just try and dismiss the whole thing because they want to continue guzzling gas and polluting the planet. Personally I love driving and all the modern benefits we receive because of our polluting ways, but cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions and our use of oil is a worthwhile cause anyway, unless you just don't give a shit about our descendants.

Re:No crap

[Goaway]

You have just accused an entire field of science of being nothing but liars.

Do you have the kind of evidence needed to back up a claim like that?

Re:No crap

[beckerist]

It's not scientists. It's politicians. MY question: how do we know that it isn't natural and cyclical? All the evidence certainly points to it...

Back to the asteroid: I have a hard time believing that, in the hundreds of millions of years that those asteroids have been stirring around the sun since "the one" broke off and smacked into us, the belt itself didn't regain gravitational stability. An analogy: take a gigantic bowl of unbaked cookie dough. NOW take a gigantic scoop out of it from the side of the bowl and STIRRRR (for a few hundred million years.) Can you still see the location where the chunk was removed?

Now let's perform this same experiment with only a single light source, using ALL physics and from the perspective of a grain of sugar about halfway between the light source (in the middle of the bowl) and the chunk...

...I don't buy it, at least not yet.

Re:No crap

[Stefanwulf]

WTF does an eclipse show?

Well, if you start with a known distance between yourself and the sun and then wait for an object of known size (an asteroid, the moon, etc) to pass between you and it at another known distance, recording the exact percent of the sun which is occluded by the object, you should be able to use those figures to determine the sun's size.

Thus using an eclipse to show that the sun is bigger than the earth, albeit in a way that's exceedingly round-about and unnecessary.

Re:No crap

[Ambitwistor]

the best argument I've heard is about global warming on other planets, which shows that we're not really having as much of an effect as we thing we are That's actually one of the worst arguments against global warming, considering the vast differences between different planetary climates and the very small amount of data we have on them. The only common factor among all planets is the Sun, and solar effects do a rather poor job in explaining the observed temperature trends on any of the planets, let alone all of them. (Well, it does ok for Earth's temperature trends at some periods in the past, but not recently.) Furthermore, there are much more direct links to non-solar causes of climate change on other planets. You have to look at individual cases to see what's going on, e.g., albedo changes on Mars, convection changes on Jupiter, perihelion on Pluto, etc. See Phil Plait's overview. I can dig up more links/references if you like, both on planetary climate trends and on solar influences.

We have vastly more data about Earth climate and that is where you should look for good arguments for or against global warming. Other planets tell us very little about Earth climate.

I've Been Foiled!

[eldavojohn]

... then make a Slashdot account and submit it there. You caught me. Oh how you've ruined years of careful plotting and planning. I am not eldavojohn, I am actually a Czech researcher named Dr. David Vokrouhlicky. I have slowly been posting careful karma whoring posts and submitting story after story all in the name of eventually publishing my research and getting it on the front page of Slashdot.

Yes, it was a long arduous endeavor. Gaining people's trust, making foes of others. It was an ingenious plan to boost the popularity and public acceptance of my paper ... and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Well, the gig is up, that hole was actually created by Rumfoord and his dog, Kazak. Ohhh, no, I've wasted my life! Who would have thought such a ridiculously elaborate and circuitous plan to tilt the scientific world towards accepting my theories based on computer models could have been foiled by an internet user named Cheezymadman!?

That's all? Earth and Moon?

[haakondahl]

It didn't create sunspots and the Great Red Spot? I think these folks are not imaginative enough.

Gap in asteroid tracking data -- Earth at risk?

[abbamouse]

I wonder if this means that our current strategy of tracking asteroids to see if they will impact Earth is the wrong one. Perhaps no asteroids "naturally" hit Earth on their present trajectories. If it takes a collision within the asteroid belt to throw out material that impacts Earth, maybe we should be trying to track the movements of large asteroids to see if they will intersect EACH OTHER rather than Earth.

I may be misunderstanding the data, and I would never change policy based on a single study, but this suggests that a more sophisticated approach is needed to detect potential impactors.

Re:Gap in asteroid tracking data -- Earth at risk?

[ceoyoyo]

The idea is that these collisions increase the number of asteroids that cross our orbit and can therefore have a chance of hitting us. It takes a while though. We don't really care about something that might hit us 160 million years from now. We care about something that might hit us say, this century. So we look at the ones that are already whizzing around in our neighborhood.

Re:Gap in asteroid tracking data -- Earth at risk?

[ChrisA90278]

Yes it's the collisions that will toss debris at us. But the time between the collision and the debris hitting us would be between millions of years or "only" a few centuries. What we need to care about is the debris from collisions that occurred long ago. But a collision would be very interesting to observe for other reasons but I'd gues they are very rare and one may not happen while humans live on Earth.

The Problems with Tycho as an Impact Crater

[pln2bz]

There is certainly a place for theories that propose that Tycho is an impact crater, and it's a very good thing that people are actually proposing simulations in an attempt to explain what we see. The idea that catastrophe plays an important role in our surroundings has increasingly become accepted. But, what do the astrophysical heretics say about Tycho? Only by listening to what they say can we play devil's advocate with this particular simulation ...

[...]

The astronomers' consensus today is that the streamers are the trails of material ejected from the crater into narrow paths over extraordinary distances. But the "rays", Juergens noted, have no discernible depth, while material exploding from a Tycho-sized crater "would at least occasionally fall more heavily in one place than in another and build up substantial formations. But no one has ever been able to point out such a ray 'deposit'".

The presence of the narrow rays over such long distances, according to Juergens, is "all-but-impossible to reconcile with ejection origins. Enormous velocities of ejection must be postulated to explain the lengths of the rays, yet the energetic processes responsible for such velocities must be imagined to be focused very precisely to account for the ribbon-thin appearance of the rays". In fact, this challenge has found no answer in more recent scientific exploration. No experimental explosion at any scale has ever produced anything comparable to the well-defined 1500-kilometer "rays" of Tycho.

Even more telling is the fact that the rays are punctuated with numerous small craters. An early explanation was that "some solid material was shot out with the jets and produced 'on-the-way' craters". But such narrow trajectories for secondary impactors are an absurdity under the mechanics of an explosion. And the total volume of ejected material needed to form the secondary craters along Tycho's rays, would amount to some 10,000 cubic kilometers - an amount of material entirely inconsistent with careful measurements indicating that practically all material excavated from Tycho's crater has been deposited in its rim. However, the ray elements, terminating on small craters, are the very markers that today's electrical theorists have cited repeatedly as definitive evidence of an electrical discharge path. As Wallace Thornhill has so often observed, such discharge streamers frequently terminate at a crater. In fact, this is exactly what Gene Shoemaker found when investigating the puzzles of Tycho--"...many small secondary craters, too small to be resolved by telescopes on earth, occur at the near end of each ray element."

When compared to an imagined sphere of the Moon's average radius, the surrounding highland region occupied by Tycho is more than 1200 meters above the "surface" of that sphere. The crater site appears to be at the summit, or very close to the summit, of terrain that trends downward in every direction away from the site for hundreds of kilometers. For the impact theory, this location can only be an accident. But for the electrical theorists, the elevation on which Tycho sits is not accidental. Lightning is attracted to the highest point on a surface. (That is, of course, the principle behind lightning arrestors placed on the pinnacles of tall buildings).

Though astronomers see Tycho's rays as material ejected from the focal point of an impact, a mere glance at this picture is sufficient to make clear that not all of the streamers radiate from a central point. Is this surprising? A mechanical impact has a single focal point and cannot explain these offset rays. Juergens noted that they "diverge from a common point, or common focus, located on or buried beneath the western rim of the crater." The electrical interpretation of Tycho sees the streamers as paths of electrons rushing across the lunar highlands to the highest point, where it launches into space to form the lightning "l

Re:The Problems with Tycho as an Impact Crater

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

We've actually witnessed collisions in space. And found evidence on earth for them. We've never seen any evidence for electrical arcs between heavenly bodies that would cause craters. So that at least implies that they are more rare, if they are possible. scientists discount interpretations of observations that are not supported by other observations. That is it. Only when an event cannot be explained by any existing model formed from previous observations, will they resort to wild guessing ( see string theory, multiple universe theory, etc).

Re:The Problems with Tycho as an Impact Crater

[pln2bz]

We've actually witnessed collisions in space. And found evidence on earth for them. We've never seen any evidence for electrical arcs between heavenly bodies that would cause craters.

This sounds a bit pseudo-skeptical to me. Are you aware that many of the images by the impactor in the Deep Impact mission clearly demonstrated numerous points of white-out? Check this out ...

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/wipeout.html

Either you believe everything that NASA interprets in its images as word of God, or there is the possibility that those white-outs are electrical arcs.

I've stated it many times before here on these forums -- because people around here tend to not realize it -- but it's worth repeating that Wallace Thornhill was able to predict nearly *all* of the results of the Deep Impact mission on the basis of space plasmas being electrical. In fact, he predicted that a pre-impact flash would be observed. And sure enough, there were two flashes at the time of impact. Nobody was predicting anything like that prior to the impact.

From day one, there have been issues with impact theory. As you may know, Meteor Crater was mined for years and the impacting body was never found within the crater. The Tunguska Crater has had the same problem.

But, the evidence is really quite significant by now that space plasmas can be electrical. In the lab, plasmas change in luminosity and resistance based upon their charge density according to three disjointed curves: the dark mode, the glow mode and the arc mode. If you ask me, the only thing preventing nature from doing the same thing are the mainstream astrophysicists themselves. Our laboratory experience should be relevant to what's happening in space.

Hannes Alfven postulated a theory that was later validated on how charge separation can occur in space (critical ionization velocity). Furthermore, it takes less than 1% of ionization within the lab for a gas to conduct electricity. Electric Universe Theory has nothing to do with exotic theoretical physics. All they're saying is that the plasma phenomenon we observe within the laboratory are relevant to our observations of space. That's it.

Only when an event cannot be explained by any existing model formed from previous observations, will they resort to wild guessing ( see string theory, multiple universe theory, etc).

If you decided to expose yourself to it -- something which few people actually do -- you would come to realize that there is a very legitimate debate to be had here. The problem is that people are satisfied with explaining away evidence which supports electrical space plasmas rather than considering the body of evidence as a whole that supports the notion. This is actually a perfect definition of pseudo-skepticism: applying skepticism in an unfair manner. This might be a legitimate procedure for interpreting observations if the mainstream theories were successfully predicting our observations. The thing is, they aren't. Don't you think that if the mainstream theories are so correct that we shouldn't be seeing so many surprises in our observations by now?

Re:The Problems with Tycho as an Impact Crater

[pln2bz]

These are all good points, but I think the key to that sentence was the fact that the rays do not change in width over the course of 1500 kilometers. That is somewhat enigmatic. We see this sort of thing in space too: vortexes that are able to retain their shape over numerous light years. Although we can certainly postulate mechanical processes that could possibly explain this, it is not giving credit to what we know of electrodynamics to ignore that these are also the hallmarks of electrical activity.

When we (really) explore space

[JoeCommodore]

I kind of expect in the future when we have ships cheap/reliable enough for regular exploration of the solar system one of our future generations does something stupid by knocking some asteroid out of whack leading to a chain reaction that causes some big space catastrophe. Then we will have space traffic laws and all that other stuff.

Re:hmm (It's called the Scientific Method, Moron)

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I really have to post anything but my modification to the title of original post? This is Slashdot,the home of snotty nerds who know almost nothing, and love to belittle their intellectual superiors, so I guess I have to spell it out.

Scientists look at facts and make hypothesis. They publish the ideas and facts that support them, and other scientists read them and add information that either supports or refutes the hypothesis. The sum total of knowledge increases over time.

The authors of the paper were doing simulations of asteroid dynamics. They found a possible event in the asteroid belt that may explain a known increase in meteor impacts in the inner solar system. They noted that this hypothesis fits in with two known large meteors, the proposed dinosaur extinction event and the moon crater Tycho. Their simulations add support to the earth impact hypothesis and the earth impact data indirectly supports their claim. This is how science works.

So how is this only a 'suggestion' with no real 'facts' to support it? I suggest that you 'get back to me' when you grow up and understand how intelligent people do real scientific inquiry. I know your little wee-wee got all hard when you had a chance to make a first post and trash some adults, but it just makes you look like a spoiled and nasty little child. Perhaps if you ever do anything useful in your life your attitude will change, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

Awfully Confusing For Us On Alpha Centauri

[jeffkjo1]

Further evidence for the asteroid mass extinction theory has been discovered as a break in the main asteroid belt of our solar system.

This is just like slashdot, submitters and editors never thinking about those of us on extra-solar planets in the Andromeda Galaxy. Everyone in the Milky Way is so planetary-centric. Would adding the extra clarification take long? No, and it would save a lot of headaches... seriously, I've got six heads out here too, do you realize how much Tylenol©®(TM) it takes to kill the pain?

Re:hmm

[Hal_Porter]

If it's not true then why aren't we up to our asses in velociraptors?

More likely

[Creepyguywithastick]

Sephiroth did it.

Re:hmm (It's called the Scientific Method, Moron)

[umghhh]

This is a sign of something more. The overall lack of basic logic capability (on /. as well as in real life) is just a fact. I see it every morning when I enter my office and open my mail box. It is fascinating to see educated people telling me for instance that you do not need any documentation and review process on (software) enginering projects. It is just a question of time to see them looking for reasons of failure. Surprisingly this reason is either aliens from outer space or the messangers.

Of course one shall never confuse simple incompetence and lack of knowledge with stupidity and bad will. The former can be eradicated the later not.

Sun-grazing

[Guppy]

Just curious -- although it is unlikely for an object to actually hit the sun, how likely are objects to be tidally disrupted or boiled away by near-grazes?

God created asteroids

[DragonTHC]

He also created hemorrhoids.

I salute you!

[Gazzonyx]

Just watched the videos on YouTube. Thank you, sir. I was going to do stuff tonight before you had to go and get me off on this tangent for several hours. Intriguing stuff; it's a pity people won't let themselves ask "what if our theories are wrong?".

I'm not sure that I fully support this model, but it makes a lot of sense, and as usual the mainstream view is, "this isn't what I was told it right, so it's wrong. I'll arrogantly wave my hand, attack peoples character, resort to name calling, and make sure I never present a single chard of debatable evidence to bolster my position." One only needs to read a few criticisms from the video to verify what I've said.

I would love to see an academic debate on this. It seems we've got the idea that we've finally figured it all out... just the way that everyone else before us thought the same. I sometimes laugh at the very notion that we've made any progress when we can't even humble ourselves enough to accept that we might be wrong. If you're in the mainstream of anything and you're sure that you're right, you'll be a victim of your own pride in the worst way - you'll be forced to defend your position until you can't hold your ground any longer and become 'that guy who was replaced by the new guy who has the right idea'. I think we know where the 'new guy' ends his career, as well.

Ironically, I could be completely wrong. I may have missed the mark on this one, as I clearly don't know anything about cosmology, astronomy, or physics. Perhaps I'll be shown to be the fool. ;)

Re:hmm

[Cytlid]

You beat me to the pool analogy punch.

  I was going to say, "Einstein was right, God doesn't play dice. He plays pool. Third planet, corner pocket!"

Sith Lord Vader

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Lord Vader and his super Star Destroyer blasting the hole through while chasing the Falcon.

Re:hmm

[bhsurfer]

Perhaps an airplane full of "missing" nukes hit it.

Hole in Asteroid Belt Reveals . . .

[moeinvt]

We'll see more holes appear in the belt as the universe expands.

Re:Hole in Asteroid Belt Reveals . . .

[BenBoy]

> We'll see more holes appear in the belt as the universe expands. Funny, I usually put more holes in my belt when my universe contracts; when it expands, I let it out a bit ...

Re:Atheism is religion

[StalinsNotDead]

Atheism is not a religion any more than accounting is a religion.

I take it you've never had to turn in an expense report.

Re: RTFA before you can it

[Yoweigh116]

Speculation, perhaps, though exactly pure. They've got some data to back up their claims.

From the article: "Studies of sediment samples and a meteorite from this time period indicate that the Chicxulub impactor had a carbonaceous chondrite composition much like the well-known primitive meteorite Murchison. This composition is enough to rule out many potential impactors but not those from the Baptistina family. Using this information in their simulations, the team found a 90 percent probability that the object that formed the Chicxulub crater was a refugee from the Baptistina family. " (emphasis added)

They tested the orbits and chemical compositions of a bunch of NEO's. The orbits fit this group, and the chemical composition fit the Yucatan crater.

How to get Slashdot Coverage

[phulegart]

If you want strangers to think you are smart, just remember to label an ongoing topic of discussion as Sensationalism, and link it to a list of other subjects that you sarcastically mark as "Hot Topics".

That way, your destructive attitude (similar in many ways to the destructive force of the asteroids in the topic) will make you *appear* like you actually know something.

Now, I'm sure that you read the friggin article. Since none of us were there to see the impact in the asteroid belt, you are correct in that there *is* speculation involved. However, it is pretty obvious that it is not PURE speculation, since they are using researched information to form their theory. They quite openly talk about the percentages of probability of the events having happened as they described them, thus stating that although they believe things happened the way they have figured it out, it is possible that they are wrong. But they did not speculate on the composition of what hit us. They did not speculate on the composition of other objects we have been hit by. They did not speculate on the frequency that we have been getting hit with objects. They did not speculate on where we were hit by the one that most likely killed the dinosaurs. They are using some speculation as to the date we were hit, but they are using data that puts it at around the right time for an extinction level event.

So throwing around a phrase like "Pure Speculation" is pure ignorance. You are just looking to get a slice of that coverage with your "Pshaw. They ain't knowin diddly. They jus lookin fer money an 'tenshun, ah reckon." shtick.

Re:Miranda

[PapaBoojum]

Me thinks you mean Minerva.

Re:hmm

[achilles777033]

We are. You might recognize them better using the term 'Pigeon' however. Or so one theory goes :P