Updated for clarity.
If you don't regularly read Eureka Alert then you would not know that a characteristic layer of charcoal and melt glass has been found in strata dated to 13000 years ago in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Venezuela and Syria. Melt Glass of the type found does not have the high sulfur associated with volcanic glasses and requires temperatures in excess of 3100 F to form. Only a few processes produce that kind of heat, cosmic body impacts and nuclear explosions. Something mighty hot happened in the Younger Dryas, most likely a killer asteroid storm,adversely impacting the Clovis people and North American Megafauna. Does the MSM media report and clamor for an increase in NASA's budget for developing the technology to track and deflect? No that might lead to high tech job creation. So the MSM reports .....................crickets.
Search the news and you will find reporting on the new findings practically non-existant.
More beyond the glyph
Something, almost certainly a meteor storm created temperatures high enough to MELT a brick in the 13000 year old layer.
"The melt material also matches melt-glass produced by the Trinity nuclear airburst of 1945 in Socorro, New Mexico," he continued. "The extreme temperatures required are equal to those of an atomic bomb blast, high enough to make sand melt and boil."
The material evidence supporting the YDB cosmic impact hypothesis spans three continents, and covers nearly one-third of the planet, from California to Western Europe, and into the Middle East. The discovery extends the range of evidence into Germany and Syria, the easternmost site yet identified in the northern hemisphere. The researchers have yet to identify a limit to the debris field of the impact.
The PNAS (June 11, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) paper also presents examples of recent independent research that supports the YDB cosmic impact hypothesis, and supports two independent groups that found melt-glass in the YDB layers in Arizona and Venezuela. "The results strongly refute the assertion of some critics that 'no one can replicate' the YDB evidence, or that the materials simply fell from space non-catastrophically," Kennett noted.
Why is this not being reported?
Well..the public might want to fund NASA to do something more to detect and divert asteroids, and that would be counter to the NO-JOBS austerity plan. If money were being spent on NASA, and the economy started to recover suddenly it is apparent that THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE to the wicked TINA game being played.
NASA created good high-tech jobs on earth while developing the technology to reach the planets. Every dollar invested in NASA has caused $2.00N to 14.00 of economic activity. Interestingly in studies that reliably showed a high return on investment because of the stimulative NASA's spending on public technology in the 70s and 80s have been curtailed or scarce in the 90s and 00.
Measuring The NASA Stimulus
NASA spending has caused "technological advancement to occur at an earlier time than it would have occurred otherwise" if it would have indeed occurred at all, an early Denver Research Institute study concluded.
But placing a monetary value on those benefits proved more difficult, even for one of NASA's greatest achievements. The "fact remains that we got to the moon in a decade, but are, as yet, unable to fully measure the present and future economic impact of the science and technology accumulated on the way to the moon (or the aggregate effect of technological progress in general)," noted the authors of a 1971 Midwest Research Institute study. No one's ever really resolved the uncertainty.
And as a result, researchers over the years have come up with a wide array of returns on investment for NASA spending. Estimated ratios of revenue generated compared to spending have been as high as 14-to-1.
Some early academic and other studies "made very 'generous' assumptions about the spinoffs, goods and services produced as a result of NASA's investments," G. Scott Hubbard, a consulting professor at Stanford University, said in an e-mail. A study commissioned by Hubbard in the mid-2000s when he was director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California on the center's local economic impact found a "more conservative" 2- to 3-to-1 ratio.
Yeah
Don't report that the Asteroids reshaped the history not just of the dinos but in the relatively recent past.
Can't have the people actually be alarmed and fund NASA.
A mere 3 to 1 return on investment is not good enough to get the Chattering Classes to fund NASA to do something more about the rocks, it might cause unintended consequences of the currently rich not getting to further concentrate their power to the stranglehold they want. It might be stimulative when stimulus spending is to be avoided at all costs. (because it works). ( and if you think that government spending is inflationary (what inflation) then you need to understand that right now BANKS LOAN money into existence, not the government Look up fractional reserve lending.)
NASA is a common good. In to saving the planet, not so much into world domination.
As DC Barker Commented
No other organization or industry has had the effect of inspiring and motivating people to engage in innovative thought, enhanced educational goals, and broadened universal mindset than the achievements of our space programs; inefficient as they are at times. This is almost unquantifiable as an economic return on investment as it drives individual goal/career paths and crosses generational boundaries. Therefore, it seems that NASA has and will always be a success because it will always provide a greater than a 1-1 economic benefit versus spending.
We need to break free of the There IS NO ALTERNATIVE and understand that the whole system of rules about money and debt is a system of made up rules that the BTB change at their convenience. We need to change the rules so we can invest in the technology to do something about the problems we ourselves create and those that universe throws at us. That is what a civilization does.
