Dinosaur-killing Asteroid Mark on North Dakota

[JarrodB]

On 4/26/2019 at 12:43 AM, JohnJ said:

True.  Fortunately, private property rights are still cherished and protected under U.S. law.

 

Thankfully where we live in Texas we have strong private property rights when it comes to fossils and artifacts. 

 

[jdp]

On 4/8/2019 at 8:16 PM, Ash said:

 

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if no credit was given. Seems to happen a bit. The paleos want it to be THERES despite that they didn’t find it and act like they did. Poor form if this is the case..

 Most of us are not like this at all. We are typically very generous with credit, and will generally invite finders to collaborate on the study or will name fossils after them. There are a small number of glory hogs who do not treat amateurs with respect, but these same people are often disrespectful to everyone, including other professionals. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with one of those few egotists.

[JohnJ]

7 minutes ago, jdp said:

 Most of us are not like this at all. We are typically very generous with credit, and will generally invite finders to collaborate on the study or will name fossils after them. There are a small number of glory hogs who do not treat amateurs with respect, but these same people are often disrespectful to everyone, including other professionals. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with one of those few egotists.

Very well said, and no different than any other group of people.

[Scipio]

So I was going to introduce myself in Members intro but I saw this and could not help commenting on it first. So without getting too much into my background, I Know Dr. Nicklas very well and have been working for him for about the past ten years or so. I also met Depalma and have had lunch with him a few times so here is what I know and hopefully, it will clear a few things up.  There is a lot to cover but here are a few things that come to mind.

 

1. I did notice in various news stories that the group was referred to mear commercial collectors. In one sense that is true since Steve ( Dr. Nicklas ) have a business that brings people out into the field to find their own fossils. However, anything that is more than an individual bone or something not seen before cannot be kept by the individual and is donated to an academic institution who has some specialty that type of fossil. When I started with the group was shortly after the "Tanis" site was found. Rob Sula who was the head guide contacted Lance Grande since he knew he specialized in fossil fish. So in 2009 several jackets were collected and sent to the Field Museum and several more over the following years.

 

2.  Steve is an Archeologist, who got his Ph.D. from the University of London, Institute of Archeology. He spent years working in Stratigraphy from an Archeological perspective but not a Geological one. He wanted someone who had a specialty in Geological Stratigraphy to work the site as well as someone who could work full time on it since he does have a lot on his plate ( Paleo prospectors, Governors Council of Indian affairs, full-time professor, etc.) So they reached out to several people but they already had projects until Depalma was recommended and showed interest in doing work at the site. Originally, the agreement was that he could only work the Fish Site (as it was then called and it a very small area, about 500 square feet) unless Steve was notified and any papers published would name the original discoveries and had to be sent to Steve before publication. This was done mainly for the fact that a Trip participant actually found the site and Steve wanted to be sure he got the credit along with his student who originally excavated and transported the fossil to the Field. Not to mention that Steve wanted to the no conflict with the Field since they had the first specimens and had priority in publishing.

 

3. Steve did make a mistake in his publication on Facebook. There was a verbal correspondence between one of the Preparators at the Field who mentioned Dr. grande was WORKING on a paper. He did not get the grant to do the work from the NSF till last year in March if I recall. I know they had finally started working on the Jackets when I was there for my bachelor party last April.

 

4. In Depalma's defense when it comes to bringing people out there... The landowners want a hefty fee for anyone stepping foot on their land and I know Depalma was paying them a lot to work the site ( which was another reason Steve turned the work on the site.) So in part, this is most likely why he is not letting people on. As an example: a couple of years back Kirk Johnson was with Tyler Lyson and a group from Denver surveying the K-Pg boundary. He asked if he could survey the boundary on the ranch to which Steve paid out of his own pocket to get Kirk and gang on there. Now whether you agree with the landowners or not these are the rules and it is difficult since there are a number of family members who own the ranch so some are more willing to forgo payments and others are not.

 

5. So I was out there when Kirk Johnson and Tyler Lyson surveyed the boundary and I know the boundary since it is VERY obvious on the ranch and it is well above the Tanis site. Not to mention a lot of dinosaur material has been found well above the site not just be me but a number of people which I confirmed with Rob Sula and Steve when this first hit the news so I am confused on how this has anything to do with the K-Pg impact since there is little uplift or thrusting as far as I can tell on the ranch but I could be wrong.

 

Hope that clears up a few things!

 

[Scylla]

Welcome to the forum 

[Mark Kmiecik]

Hi, Scipio, and welcome to the forum.

[Al Dente]

10 hours ago, Scipio said:

So I was out there when Kirk Johnson and Tyler Lyson surveyed the boundary and I know the boundary since it is VERY obvious on the ranch and it is well above the Tanis site. Not to mention a lot of dinosaur material has been found well above the site not just be me but a number of people which I confirmed with Rob Sula and Steve when this first hit the news so I am confused on how this has anything to do with the K-Pg impact since there is little uplift or thrusting as far as I can tell on the ranch but I could be wrong.

 

Hope that clears up a few things!

 

So are you saying the paper DePalma publish is not describing the K-Pg boundary? His site is actually below the boundary? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding what you are saying.

[FranzBernhard]

7 hours ago, Al Dente said:

His site is actually below the boundary?

That´s true, according to the paper, its immediately below the (formal) boundary, which is per definition the Ir-enriched layer, but that´s only a matter of a few hours, maybe days. Figs and text from DePalma et al., 2019:

Map of the Tanis study locality. (A) Tanis within a regional context (large map) and on a national map (Inset). Reprinted with permission from ref. 14; black dots in Inset are previously documented KPg tsunami localities; star denotes Tanis. Kf, Fox Hills Formation; Kh, Hell Creek Formation; Kp, Pierre Shale; Qor, Holocene; QTu, Quaternary and Upper Tertiary; Tp, Slope Formation. (B) Photo and interpretive overlay of an oblique cross-section through Tanis, showing the contact between the angled point-bar sandstone and the gray Hell Creek bedrock. (C) Simplified schematic depicting the general contemporaneous depositional setting for the Event Deposit (not to scale). The Event Deposit (1) covers the slope of a prograding point bar of a meander (2), which incised into the Hell Creek bedrock during the late Cretaceous. Location of the densest carcass accumulations (3) along the slope; location of KPg boundary tonstein directly overlying the Event Deposit (4); location of KPg tonstein overlying the adjacent overbank (5); location of Brooke Butte (6), the closest KPg outcrop to Tanis.

 

Tanis site stratigraphy and fossil distribution. Stratigraphic section of Tanis, outlining the lithological subdivisions and grain-size profile for the Event Deposit, abundance and primary stratigraphic distribution for a selection of continental and marine fossils, abundance of marine palynomorphs (palyno %), select impact-derived materials, and flow direction.

 

17 hours ago, Scipio said:

the boundary since it is VERY obvious on the ranch and it is well above the Tanis site.

That´s really, really interesting! Are you able to give an indication whats well above? According to the paper,  the Ir-layer is immediately above the Tanis site (= event deposit). Is there a gross error / misunderstanding in the paper of DePalma? It seems, that the Ir-enriched layer is deposited on different sediments within a small area: The event deposit (4), the overbank (5) and the Hell Creek bedrock (6). That´s all most interesting! Thanks!
Franz Bernhard

[Scipio]

On 5/3/2019 at 6:53 PM, Scylla said:

Welcome to the forum 

Thank you!

On 5/3/2019 at 8:40 PM, Mark Kmiecik said:

Hi, Scipio, and welcome to the forum.

And thank you as well!

[Scipio]

On 5/4/2019 at 4:56 AM, Al Dente said:

 

So are you saying the paper DePalma publish is not describing the K-Pg boundary? His site is actually below the boundary? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding what you are saying.

Well, what I am trying to say is that I am not sure. From what I remember when I was showed the boundary it is about 30 feet or so above the actual site. Now I could be wrong but I am just going by what I remember when Kirk Johnson was out there and I trust him completely. It could be there are some uplifts and faulting that I am not aware of but I nor others who have been out there never noticed anything.

[Scipio]

On 5/4/2019 at 7:07 AM, FranzBernhard said:

That´s true, according to the paper, its immediately below the (formal) boundary, which is per definition the Ir-enriched layer, but that´s only a matter of a few hours, maybe days. Figs and text from DePalma et al., 2019:

Map of the Tanis study locality. (A) Tanis within a regional context (large map) and on a national map (Inset). Reprinted with permission from ref. 14; black dots in Inset are previously documented KPg tsunami localities; star denotes Tanis. Kf, Fox Hills Formation; Kh, Hell Creek Formation; Kp, Pierre Shale; Qor, Holocene; QTu, Quaternary and Upper Tertiary; Tp, Slope Formation. (B) Photo and interpretive overlay of an oblique cross-section through Tanis, showing the contact between the angled point-bar sandstone and the gray Hell Creek bedrock. (C) Simplified schematic depicting the general contemporaneous depositional setting for the Event Deposit (not to scale). The Event Deposit (1) covers the slope of a prograding point bar of a meander (2), which incised into the Hell Creek bedrock during the late Cretaceous. Location of the densest carcass accumulations (3) along the slope; location of KPg boundary tonstein directly overlying the Event Deposit (4); location of KPg tonstein overlying the adjacent overbank (5); location of Brooke Butte (6), the closest KPg outcrop to Tanis.

 

Tanis site stratigraphy and fossil distribution. Stratigraphic section of Tanis, outlining the lithological subdivisions and grain-size profile for the Event Deposit, abundance and primary stratigraphic distribution for a selection of continental and marine fossils, abundance of marine palynomorphs (palyno %), select impact-derived materials, and flow direction.

 

That´s really, really interesting! Are you able to give an indication whats well above? According to the paper,  the Ir-layer is immediately above the Tanis site (= event deposit). Is there a gross error / misunderstanding in the paper of DePalma? It seems, that the Ir-enriched layer is deposited on different sediments within a small area: The event deposit (4), the overbank (5) and the Hell Creek bedrock (6). That´s all most interesting! Thanks!
Franz Bernhard

Yes by about 30 feet give or take. I am looking through old pictures to try to find the boundary layer so you can see what I am talking about. Also if you would like I can send you some satellite photos but I would prefer to PM them since I do have an obligation to keep the ranch location under wraps to a certain extent.

[Scipio]

This article is the best take on the site that I have read so far. It does mention a quote from Kirk Johnson that the site is 11 meters below the K-Pg boundary.

 

https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/why-this-stunning-dinosaur-fossil-discovery-has-scientists-stomping-mad/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR24HRNSJkphBd2oToiBkhCWIxZiI7XWJ950-P591UDf7kYEalXW3NzHauc#Echobox=1557432595

[FranzBernhard]

Thanks, @Scipio, for the link! Some very interesting background!

 

If have copied this from the article above:

"Across North America, that marker is about a centimetre thick, the Smithsonian’s Johnson says. Tanis boasts a layer of 1.4 metres, sitting nearly 11 metres below the rest of the K-Pg boundary in Hell Creek, he adds."

 

The 1.4 metres are about the thickness of the event deposit (see stratigraphic section). The Ir-enriched layer itself, capping the event deposit, is also only a cm or so thick. The bold thing is very interesting. To me it seems, that Johnson speaks in topographical terms, not in stratigraphical. This would qualitatively resemble the situation that is depicted in the schematic drawing C of DePalma (Ir-enriched layers 4 and 6 seem to be on different topographic heights). Unfortunately, this drawing does not have a scale.

 

Franz Bernhard

[Ash]

On 30/04/2019 at 10:09 AM, jdp said:

 Most of us are not like this at all. We are typically very generous with credit, and will generally invite finders to collaborate on the study or will name fossils after them. There are a small number of glory hogs who do not treat amateurs with respect, but these same people are often disrespectful to everyone, including other professionals. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with one of those few egotists.

 

Nah, I’d say it’s because they’re the ones trying to make a name for themselves so are the main ones I hear about.

Wasnt meaning to broad brush it.

[Boesse]

On 5/10/2019 at 1:02 PM, FranzBernhard said:

Thanks, @Scipio, for the link! Some very interesting background!

 

If have copied this from the article above:

"Across North America, that marker is about a centimetre thick, the Smithsonian’s Johnson says. Tanis boasts a layer of 1.4 metres, sitting nearly 11 metres below the rest of the K-Pg boundary in Hell Creek, he adds."

 

The 1.4 metres are about the thickness of the event deposit (see stratigraphic section). The Ir-enriched layer itself, capping the event deposit, is also only a cm or so thick. The bold thing is very interesting. To me it seems, that Johnson speaks in topographical terms, not in stratigraphical. This would qualitatively resemble the situation that is depicted in the schematic drawing C of DePalma (Ir-enriched layers 4 and 6 seem to be on different topographic heights). Unfortunately, this drawing does not have a scale.

 

Franz Bernhard

I can categorically state that Johnson was absolutely speaking stratigraphically and not topographically. At least, according to many discussions amongst VPers on Facebook right after the paper came out.

[Boesse]

Also, followup to property rights issues: I am emphatically pro-amateur collecting (obviously, if I weren't I wouldn't be on here... also a convenient opportunity to apologize for being on here less than I used to, but I'm getting better).

 

I am friends with Tom Carr but will be the first to admit that he is an extremist when it comes to his beliefs about fossil collecting rights. Do I get bummed on occasion when I see a spectacular fossil for sale that I would like to study? Yes, of course. I'm only human. Do I want to make private or commercial collecting illegal? Of course not. Do I wish everyone took notes and kept their collections well-organized? YES. This "seize fossils by eminent domain" proposal is absurd and ultimately un-American. Professionals just have to be patient, or find their own darn fossils if they're not happy with it. Or work closely with talented and generous collectors to get scientifically significant fossils into museums like I do.

[Ash]

On 24/06/2019 at 10:10 AM, Boesse said:

Also, followup to property rights issues: I am emphatically pro-amateur collecting (obviously, if I weren't I wouldn't be on here... also a convenient opportunity to apologize for being on here less than I used to, but I'm getting better).

 

I am friends with Tom Carr but will be the first to admit that he is an extremist when it comes to his beliefs about fossil collecting rights. Do I get bummed on occasion when I see a spectacular fossil for sale that I would like to study? Yes, of course. I'm only human. Do I want to make private or commercial collecting illegal? Of course not. Do I wish everyone took notes and kept their collections well-organized? YES. This "seize fossils by eminent domain" proposal is absurd and ultimately un-American. Professionals just have to be patient, or find their own darn fossils if they're not happy with it. Or work closely with talented and generous collectors to get scientifically significant fossils into museums like I do.

 

Skye and I have several fossils the museum would like, but they’re quite happy to leave them in our amateur hands until we’re ready to donate. They know that could be decades away too.

I’m very impressed with the museum we corrospond with and their treatment of amateurs like us.

[non-remanié]

On 6/23/2019 at 7:59 PM, Boesse said:

I can categorically state that Johnson was absolutely speaking stratigraphically and not topographically. At least, according to many discussions amongst VPers on Facebook right after the paper came out.

 

That may have been his intent, but how could he possibly know unless he is comparing the Tanis site topographically to some adjacent outcrop of the K/Pg?    The Tanis site event deposit is at the top of a butte. Its the top of the stratigraphic column at those coordinates.  He can only be comparing the topographic height of the supposed K/Pg at Tanis to some other nearby outcrops where its topographically higher.  The river channel explanation is completely consistent with this.   An event deposit like the K/Pg would be superimposed upon the underlying topography at the time of the event.  A river channel would clearly be at a lower height than the vast majority of surrounding land surface.   

[non-remanié]

On 6/23/2019 at 8:10 PM, Boesse said:

. This "seize fossils by eminent domain" proposal is absurd and ultimately un-American. 

 

Agree 100%.  Absurd and anyone who treats the idea as a realistic possibility is living in a conspiracy theory movie.  

[Auspex]

Just a thought of mine:

What about periods of locally high sediment deposition punctuated by successive periods of iridium deposition (low-level trajectory, high altitude drift, and orbital ejection) resulting in local anomalies and even multiple layers of "boundary" iridium? I doubt that it was a clean once-and-done thing...

[non-remanié]

1 hour ago, Auspex said:

Just a thought of mine:

What about periods of locally high sediment deposition punctuated by successive periods of iridium deposition (low-level trajectory, high altitude drift, and orbital ejection) resulting in local anomalies and even multiple layers of "boundary" iridium? I doubt that it was a clean once-and-done thing...

I believe the idea is that the Iridium is mostly derived from the smallest dust size particles from the vaporized impactor.  It would be deposited worldwide over a more extended period of time than other ejecta.

 

At one location in NJ, the Iridium occurs in an enriched interval over 10s of cms.  Some of this is likely due to post depositional remobilization, however.   

[Auspex]

2 minutes ago, non-remanié said:

It would be deposited worldwide over a more extended period of time than other ejecta.

Certainly the iridium distributed on the other side of the planet would be the finest material, but what of 100- or 200 micron debris? 500 micron? Mightn't there be a gradient, or was the iridium really only in the 3 micron range?

If it seems that I am fishing from the pier of scientific ignorance, it is because I am.

[non-remanié]

21 minutes ago, Auspex said:

Certainly the iridium distributed on the other side of the planet would be the finest material, but what of 100- or 200 micron debris? 500 micron? Mightn't there be a gradient, or was the iridium really only in the 3 micron range?

If it seems that I am fishing from the pier of scientific ignorance, it is because I am.

Don't worry I am too!   This surely isn't where I originally got that idea in my head, but it is argued here:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324693903_IRIDIUM_AND_THE_CHICXULUB_IMPACT_DUST