The evidence for neutrons in an

The evidence for neutrons in an ET/ELE (extraterrestrial/extinction level event) in prehistory about 12,500 yrs ago.
Web published from New Mexico, USA, April 2007, and hosted in Nova Scotia, Canada. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William H. Topping (solar_crisis@yahoo.com)

This work hopefully will appeal to the average person and professional alike. It contains previously unpublished test results which, for anyone with an open mind, are clear. “Something” happened about 12,500 yrs ago, and the evidence at hand does and has suggested to this researcher for many years that it was a “giant solar flare” (to use the generic term) that may or may not have been triggered to some degree at some point in the more remote past by one or more supernovae. Those episodes did take place, and must have had some effect, but the concern of this researcher is the “immediate and direct cause” of radiocarbon resets, extinctions, and plant mutations all taking place at about the same time, and all in direct relation to the sun as it orients toward the earth as it rotates, and all effectively “over” within 24 hours.

A recently published book entitled The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophies by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith is a must-read (Bear & Company, Rochester, Vermont, ISBN 159143061-5) which, not unsurprisingly to this researcher, is getting most interest in Europe and Eastern Europe according to informed sources. Any reader can be absolutely certain of American cultural rigidity that constrains what little is left of actual science and real educational achievement here in the United States. That having been said, we simply proceed with the original article, and associated pages that involve the evidence for “neutrons in prehistory.” What is important to realize and remember is that somehow, particles of all sizes from very small to very large though the atmosphere during the event that also involved neutrons, which has been the main “sticking point” to this own researcher’s attempts for many years to have various experts accept what is clear evidence. Some of the particles that showered the North American landscape during the event were very small, to approximately 8 microns in diameter (a micron is 1 millionth of a meter, which is 39.37 inches), which necessarily means the atmosphere had to have “ceased to exist” for some milliseconds or perhaps seconds or more, or at least been eliminated in terms of the bulk or a large percentage. Basically, the only way to accomplish this is with an antimatter-matter event in which “matter” literally disappears, and the only conceivable possibility at this point is antimatter from a solar flare. That page is included, NASA.

Solar flares also involve neutrons, and neutrons would have produced more 14C (14N or nitrogen in the atmosphere + neutrons = 14C with a half-life of about 5730 yrs) in place at Paleo-Indian sites to make the radiocarbon dates look younger now. That page also is included, NASA again. Following that, the very clear data in the form of test results that indicate neutrons during the event are presented, and that is followed by an unpublished piece on the “Lewisville Site” which is unknown to most people, and formerly assumed by the Paleo-Indian experts to have yielded “contaminated” radiocarbon dates (contaminated with older lignite) to make the dates look much older than they were. In fact, there was no lignite at all to contaminate the samples, and the awkward situation is that the evidence for the great antiquity of the American Paleo-Indian expression (lithic tradition and lifestyles, or stonework for tools and life ways) has been in place for many years, but overlooked.

The evidence is presented in straightforward fashion, but is digestible, and easy to flow through. It is, in this researcher’s opinion, the obligation of the scientific community to share not only with its peers, but the public at large. Where other web pages are included, necessary permissions and attributions have been obtained and are acknowledged. However, there is "something else" involved in the research and test results, and so "bold" characters will be used to highlight what turned into some very real "alternate nuclear energy" possibilities. We begin with a short piece on the Lewisville, Texas, Paleo-Indian site. That sets the stage for all that follows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) American Paleo-Indian expression must be "much older" than thought.
Lewisville Revisited: A North American Paleo-Indian Site more than 26,000 years old. William Topping Principal Investigator, NSF Physics 9986999 solar_crisis@yahoo.com

In the classic by H. M Wormington, Ancient Man in North America, there is a short discussion about the Lewisville, Texas, Paleo-Indian site in which radiocarbon testing from two different features returned dates more than 37,000 years old (1957: 58-59). A controversy followed over whether or not the fluted point had been “planted,” or whether or not the “hearths” were actually features produced by human activity (Brannon et. al., 1957; Crook and Harris, 1957, 1962; Ferguson and Libby, 1962). In 1985 a study of the site was made possible because of lower water levels caused by drought; the Trinity river had been damned and water had covered the site for many years. The study was conducted by the Illinois State Geological Survey (Environmental Geology Notes 109, 1985) and primarily used comparative Moessbauer analyses of samples from the hearth as well as samples of lignite from the nearby Woodbine formation in an effort to determine whether or not the Paleo-Indians had burned “lignite” to yield a falsely very old date. Lignite is simply coal, but very low grade and fibrous to woody in its composition.

http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (1 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

A careful inspection of the report is instructive. The preface to the report begins: “...lignite in hearth residues would give older than actual ages by radiocarbon dating. X-ray diffraction proved inconclusive; however, Moessbauer spectroscopy indicated that hematite, a pyrite combustion product, was present in the ash. From this evidence we conclude there is some support for this hypothesis [bold here and below author] (Shiley et. al. 1985: 1).” Anyone reading the preface probably would come to the conclusion that lignite had contaminated the samples. However, on careful reading it is clear that in fact there is “no support whatsoever” for the hypothesis that lignite was used by the Paleo-Indians at Lewisville. Part of the study involved obtaining another radiocarbon date from one of the hearths. The date obtained (TX-2A) was 26,610 +/- 300 B.P (Shiley et. al.: 2). This date was much younger than dates originally obtained, but radiocarbon pretreatment methodology had improved substantially in the two decades that had passed since the original dates were obtained. In a very thorough comparative analysis of “burned Woodbine lignite” and the ash from the actual hearths, the key to the suggestion that there was “some support” for the hypothesis that lignite had been used lies in one simple statement about a particular aspect of the research: “Of the hearth samples analyzed, only the ash from the modern all-night lignite fires ...showed any appreciable increase in iron over that found in surrounding soil (Shiley et.al.: 3)” The conclusion apparently was drawn that “iron” (pyrite) = “lignite only,” and therefore lignite must have been used by the Paleo-Indians.

The analysis of the rare earth elements resulted in the following conclusion: “ ...it dramatically illustrates that the rare earth composition of Woodbine Formation lignite and its corresponding ash are very similar to one another, but are not similar to the soil or the hearth samples. The rare earth composition of the surrounding soil follows the same pattern as that of the hearths. From this data, it is reasonable to provisionally conclude that Woodbine Formation lignite was not burned in the hearths (Shiley et. al.: 5).” X-ray diffraction was even more clear: “An authogenic kaolinite characteristically found in the lignites DJ-2 and DJ-5 and in the all-night fire ash (DJ-3) was not found in any of the hearth samples (Shiley et. al.: 6).” In the conclusion there is the statement: “From 'fingerprints' obtained from neutron activation analysis of the hearth samples, it was reasonable to provisionally conclude that no Woodbine Formation was burned in the hearths. Furthermore, perhaps because of concentration problems, pyrite combustion products were not detected using X-ray diffraction (Shiley et. al.: 10). This is followed by this statement: “The use of Moessbauer spectroscopy, on the other hand, produced positive results. Hematite, a pyrite combustion product, was found in hearth 22. We conclude that there is some support for the hypothesis that Woodbine Formation lignite was burned in this hearth, thus increasing the apparent age (radiocarbon date) of the hearth material (Shiley et al.: 10).”

This statement, which is very misleading, is completely out-of-context. Above, in the report, are two very important clues to the obvious misinterpretation. First is a section related to the Moessbauer analysis: “Pyrite decomposition products were positively identified only in the samples from the all-night fires and the 35- to 40-cm lining of hearth 22...(Shiley et. al.: 6).” Second is the logic pursued: “Because hematite, a combustion product of pyrite, was found in the samples from hearth 22, which had a controversial radiocarbon date of 26, 610 B.P., we found some support for the suggestion that small quantities of Woodbine Formation lignite were burned in this hearth. The result would be a mix of carbon dated > 37,000 radiocarbon years with younger carbon-14 materials (Shiley et al.: 9).” What complicated the analysis was the oversight of the mobility of irons, and special chemical or environmental conditions that foster pyrite buildup: “Bacteria have been suggested to cause deposition, or at least to catalyze deposition, of ferric hydroxide deposits such as bog iron ores....Precipitation of iron sulfides such as pyrite may also be aided by sulphur-reducing bacteria (Boggs 1987: 75).” Pyrite is FeS2 (Boggs: 30) and the sulphur is easily oxidized to form hematite which is 2Fe2O3. There are particular conditions that foster the buildup of pyrites: "Iron sulfides, particularly pyrite (FeS2 ), are forming in black muds that accumulate under reducing conditions in stagnant ocean basins, tidal flats, and organic-rich lakes....hematite (Fe2O3) is precipitated under oxidizing conditions at the pHs commonly found in the ocean and surface waters, siderite (FeCO3) forms under moderately reducing conditions, and pyrite (FeS2) forms under moderate to strong reducing conditions (Boggs: 94-95).” “Authogenesis” refers to the postdepositional manufacture of new minerals, and the primary process is the formation of pyrites under reducing conditions (Boggs: 273-274). Iron is common, and it reduces and transports rapidly and very efficiently and rapidly under conditions that most favor transport: a water environment. The damning of the Trinity River provided a perfect setting for the manufacture of pyrites, and thus “had to have” transported irons into the features. In fact, the bulk of the data and associated analyses in the report are clear: no lignite was present in the hearth samples. The report mentions the “controversy” of the radiocarbon date obtained, and probably (almost certainly) explains why the authors suggested the possibility of lignite contamination when, in fact, there was no evidence for that conclusion at all.

Simply put, the date obtained in 1985 was at odds with worldview “then” (but no longer is, primarily due to the pioneering efforts of Dennis Stanford, Henry T. Wright and others). As a factual matter, we now have (and for many years have had, but unknown to the public) a reliable radiocarbon date for a Paleo-Indian site in North America that is more than 26,000 years old, and evolving evidence suggests that the date might be much older still (Firestone and Topping). The Lewisville radiocarbon date of “at least” 26,000 yrs bp rcy should be regarded as the new Paleo-Indian baseline, and very probably a minimal age for the peopling of the Americas.

References cited:

Boggs, Sam Jr. 1987. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Brannon, H.R, Jr., A. C. Daughtry, D,. Perry, L.H. Simons, W.W. Whitaker and M. Williams. Humble Oil radiocarbon dates I. 1957. Science, 125: 147-150. Crook, W.W. Jr., and R.K. Harris. 1957. Hearths and artifacts of early man near Lewisville, Texas, and associated faunal material. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 18: 7-97. Crook, W.W. Jr., and R.K. Harris. 1962. Significance of a new radiocarbon date from the Lewisville Site. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 32: 327-330. Fergusson, G.J., and W.F. Libby. 1962. UCLA radiocarbon dates I. Radiocarbon 4: 109-114.
http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (2 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

Firestone, Richard B. and William Topping, Terrestrial Evidence for a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times. 2001. Mammoth Trumpet 16 (2): 9-16. Shiley, Richard H., Randall E. Hughes, Richard A. Cahill, and Kenneth L. Konopka. Moessbauer Anaysis of Lewisville, Texas, Archaeological Site Lignite and Hearth Samples. 1985. Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes 109. Carbondale, Illinois. Wormington, H.M. n.d. Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4. 1957 Preface. Denver, Colorado. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Good evidence for neutrons during the "event" that had to have reset radiocarbon dates in a young direction.
Response to Comments by John R. Southon, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and R.E. Taylor, University of California, Riverside. William Topping Principal Investigator, NSF-Physics 9986999 solar_crisis@yahoo.com A Mammoth Trumpet article (16(2): 9-16) entitled "Terrestrial Evidence for a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times" which is the subject of scrutiny by the authors above in the17(2) issue of the same journal resulted from 11 years of interdisciplinary research by the Principal Investigator. There is misinterpretation by authors Southon/Taylor who rebutted the piece in asserting they could find only 1 young date, and no related evidence such as extinctions and mutations. We (Firestone and Topping) presented 7 definite Paleo-Indian sites with "extremely young" radiocarbon dates: Gainey, Leavitt, Zander, Thedford, Potts, Alton and Grant Lake. As a factual matter there "is" a pattern to abnormally young dates in the Great Lakes region of North America. The sources for these dates were documented thoroughly, and clearly presented in the article. Among Paleo-Indian specialists (relatively few), this pattern is well-known. In addition, we discussed extinctions and mutations that are chronologically related, and based on evidence for prehistoric neutron flux most likely a direct result.

"Depleted" Uranium 235 is caused by neutrons, and the excessive Plutonium 239 found in various Paleo-Indian artifacts also is attributable to "neutrons in prehistory" considering all available evidence. The genesis of 14C is neutrons (14N + n = 14C), and the fact that we have hard evidence for prehistoric neutrons necessarily means 14C had to have been produced both in situ, and in the atmosphere. Many sediment profiles have been taken at widely separated locations in Michigan and elsewhere, and gamma analyzed. LBNL provided gamma runs accessed and analyzed with Maestro 5.30 software. These gamma spectra reveal anomalies at the B-C sediment interface, or the Paleo-Indian horizon at depth. Recent radiochemistry results on a Leavitt artifact "acid-etched" to remove the outer ~ 1/4 of the heavily patinated (silicate coating) surface, which eliminates the possibility of contamination from fallout (we tested this hypothesis with long-exposed Bayport chert: "no support" for fallout hypothesis), indicate Plutonium 239 at gross abundance. A massive prehistoric neutron event is indicated, and the micrometeorites themselves have been the subject of intense study which has included plutonium radiochemistry and gamma analysis on samples which were acid-bathed and washed with distilled water to remove all carbonates and adhering sediments. The micrometeorites exhibited the following attributes: the presence of both Plutonium 238 and 239, Cesium 137, and "depleted Uranium 235." Since the half lives of Plutonium 238 and Cesium 137 are so short (~ 87.7 and ~ 30.07 years respectively) the possibility of an exotic form of ongoing fission has been dismissed a priori in favor of the "fallout hypothesis" despite the logical inconsistency involved in attributing "depleted Uranium 235" to fallout, which is impossible. Most persuasively, at Phoenix Memorial Laboratory (University of Michigan) a rigorously controlled gamma analysis was undertaken in 1996. The methodology compared 3 Paleo-Indian artifacts (Butler, Gainey and Leavitt retouch/channel flakes which are thin) to controls in the form of 2 later-period artifacts from the same geographic area (higher stratigraphic positions in sediments) and 4 separate "chert" controls from different sources representing respective chert types (Bayport and Upper Mercer), and then gamma runs for identical time periods to control half-lives ( t1/2 234Th = ~ 24 days, and t1/2 235U = ~ 7.04E8 years). We attempted to achieve nearly identical dimensions in terms of thickness, and configuration. Uranium is basically 238U and also 235U which is present in standard abundance at ~ 0.72%. The gamma "lines" or KeV energies which indicate uranium proportions are ~ 63, ~ 93, ~ 144, and ~ 186. The lines at 63/93 and 144/186 are key indicators since ~ 144 is basically 235U with an intensity (basically, how easily the gamma energy can be identified) of ~ 10.96 at 143.678 complicated somewhat by 223Ra at 144.432 with a lower intensity of ~ 3.22. The line at ~ 186 is mostly 235U at 185.712 with an intensity of ~ 57.2, again complicated somewhat by 226Ra at 186.221 with a much lower intensity of ~ 3.59. The lines at ~ 63 and ~ 93 are essentially all 234Th, the daughter of 238U, with the respective associated intensities of ~ 4.8 at 63.29, ~ 2.891 at 92.38, and ~ 2.77 at 92.80 (1).

Comparing the proportions (nets) is very revealing since "depleted 235U" would be most manifest in the line at 186 compared to the lines at 63 and 93. In Phoenix runs the 144 line was not discernable, but results are consistent and probably conclusive. Uranium content in cherts varies; Bayport is relatively rich, while Upper Mercer is not. Butler is ~ 1 km away from Gainey, while Leavitt is ~ 80 km from Gainey. At Gainey, Upper Mercer was the chert type while at Butler and Leavitt the chert type was Bayport. The other two artifacts (Archaic and Woodland) were made of entirely different chert types. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TABLE 1. Phoenix Memorial Laboratory gamma runs on specimens. 129,600 seconds each run. Paleo-Indian in RED. Net counts, background out.

Sample Gainey Mercer1 Mercer2 Butler Bayport 1

234Th Wt/mg 63 127.5 1645 713.8 1694 798.5 1876 899.8 2130 193.4 1948

234Th mostly 235U 235U 93 186 Total 2655 1121 5421 2853 1365 5912 2763 1532 6171 2864 1156 6150 2752 1441 6141

186%/total = 20.6788415 = 23.0886333 = 24.8257981 = 18.796748 = 23.4652337

Conclusion depleted 235U normal 235U normal 235U depleted 235U normal 235U

http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (3 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

Bayport 2 236.4 1930 3060 1516 6506 = 23.3015678 normal 235U Leavitt 114.8 1931 2509 1112 5552 = 20.0288184 depleted 235U Lakewood 126.3 1713 2742 1468 5923 = 24.784737 normal 235U Pinegrove 246.2 1784 2795 1478 6057 = 24.401519 normal 235U --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results require little "analysis" since the proportions obviously are so different, and very unlikely (essentially impossible) due to coincidence. Other LBNL runs were analyzed, which did pick up the 144 line, and also indicated "depleted 235U," consistent with McMaster Nuclear Reactor and Phoenix results. Compared to a uranium ore sample (186 at ~ 55.30804% of 63, 93, 144 and 186), the 186 line in a Butler artifact came in at ~ 19.82593% (essentially identical to Phoenix results), and Taylor artifacts at ~ 29.93631% which is precisely the pattern expected by latitude/longitude. Gainey "C" sediments came in at ~ 34.7042% for the 186 line, and the micrometeorites came in at ~ 31.5792%. There is one more indicator of internal consistency in these data. Specifically, the 235U depletion rates for Gainey and Butler indicate more depletion in Butler. These two PaleoIndian sites are very close geographically, but the Butler artifact was made of Bayport chert with more uranium than Upper Mercer (Gainey). In a neutron event, higher uranium content would lead to more nuclear interactions (i.e., more secondary neutrons produced) which would lead to higher rates of 235U depletion which is exactly what the Phoenix results indicate.

These results are especially meaningful since "artifacts" and "sites" should be considered in their larger context as entities representative of the overall environment during a "particular window in time," but only at a certain longitude/latitude/depth, just as the K-T boundary is anywhere in the world. The Phoenix, LBNL, McMaster and other results are critically important since they do not record data about "particular oddities" but rather provide coherent and general information about the prehistoric North American and world landscape just as the ice cores at particular depths do. One test did conflict. A TIMS (thermal ionization mass spectrometry) analysis at USGS, Menlo Park, found "no depletion" while McMaster results (delayed neutrons) found depleted 235U, completely consistent with gamma comparisons and outsourced radiochemistry. In a test of the TIMS method itself, "depleted uranium" in U3O8 powdered form from Starmet Corporation was obtained. A sample was sent to a TIMS laboratory, and the results came back as ~0.23% 235U. In fact, the depleted uranium was supposed to be ~ 0.20%, or less. In two LBNL gamma runs, results on the same depleted uranium came back as ~ 0.20% 235U, or precisely that expected. In regard to the Menlo Park TIMS analysis, 6 samples were analyzed and in the case of Onondaga chert (USGS lab. no. 01-141, July 9, 2001) the result was "no U yield" (2) which is difficult to explain since neutron activation serial analyses detected uranium in Onondaga chert in respective amounts of 0.436 ppm (3) and 0.463 (4) and the standard deviations for the series were 0.100 and 0.109, again respectively. Formerly, TIMS was regarded as more accurate than neutron activation analysis which detects on the basis of fission/capture byproducts (and delayed neutrons for 235U determination in the McMaster method). There now are larger questions involved regarding respective methodologies, and the Menlo Park results in particular must be regarded as meaningless since they are impossible to reconcile with the available NAA results on Onondaga chert, but unfortunately arrived before the most recent data became available.

In the case of McMaster, of "thousands of runs" only the Paleo-Indian artifacts and related chert samples evidenced depleted 235U. Importantly, a uranium standard in the form of uraninite dissolved in HF and then reincorporated into a granular absorbent with a total gamma activity of ~ 100 Bq was analyzed at McMaster. This standard was supplied in spherical form, and McMaster quartered the sample and in 4 separate analyses (each ~ 25 Bq which is near "background" in some glaciated sediments tested) the 235U proportion came in at ~ 0.72% in each case. If McMaster methodology was flawed, then we should not have found the standard 235U abundance in these 4 control tests of the method. Again, it effectively is statistically impossible for all of these results to be "coincidence," and the bulk of the evidence in the form of McMaster methodology, gamma analyses, and associated radiochemistry are consistent and coherent in detecting a prehistoric neutron event. In this regard, the Principal Investigator owns an NaI (sodium iodide) detector and since 1998 has done many (~ 10,000) gamma runs with a variety of uranium ores, thorium, and sediments/rocks/artifacts which has provided much expertise.

Since the inception of the investigation, the Principal Investigator has regarded a "solar flare" as direct cause for the clear pattern at ~ 12,500 yrs bp as recorded in ice and marine data, Paleo-Indian radiocarbon dates/ artifacts and associated extinctions and mutations, and also sediments at depth simply because the overall pattern suggests an "event" of less than or about 24 hours duration with primary observable effects consistent with the rotation of the earth in respect to the sun. Earlier "cosmic events" appear to have contributed to isotopic anomalies. There is an inverse relationship between micrometeorite densities in artifacts and related PaleoIndian radiocarbon dates. At Gainey and Leavitt where the radiocarbon dates obtained were virtually identical at ~ 2880 bp rcy the particle density was ~ 70,000 cm^2. Particle densities at other sites are lower by latitude/ longitude, with older associated radiocarbon dates. At Taylor, for instance, the density of micrometeorites was ~ 40,000 cm^2. This implies particles were deposited in one shockwave of great intensity, with necessary associated neutrons. The most likely culprit is the sun, but this may be incorrect. Independent testing to confirm depleted 235U in the micrometeorites had been considered to "rule out" a supernova since the debris ought to contain "enriched" 235U (assuming uranium actually is formed in supernovae), but now has been discarded because the debris itself would have been subjected to neutrons, and hence depleted "then." Firestone may be correct in hypothesizing a supernova, and there are other possibilities as well. The characteristics of a shockwave with associated nuclear interactions are chaotic, but the Southon/Taylor critique of the 14C production involved two fundamental oversights. First, the assumption that the Pleistocene atmosphere contained ~78% nitrogen is entirely problematic. With ice having covered almost half the earth for a long period of time (perhaps approaching ~ 1.6 million years), the atmosphere must have been less dense due to lowered biotic activity, and nitrogen content presumably was substantially lower. Second, in a shockwave the relative densities of atmospheric compression into in a "funnel" would have involved entirely different nuclear interactions by latitude/longitude/height including production of nitrogen oxides, and the most probable (essentially, "definite" because of the 14C + n-t,f reactions) associated destruction of 14C, which itself decays back into 14N (t1/2 = ~ 5730 years). Literature on atmospheric nuclear weapons testing makes it clear (5; see 1.36, 2.131, 2.132, 2.140 and 2.150 in particular). Neutron/gamma response to varying degrees of atmospheric density in a shockwave are complicated and symbiotic, and in all fairness to everyone probably "never" calculable in mathematical terms since the event (main) is deep in time, and environmental conditions then so different from modern.

Decisively, at the Lewisville, Texas, Paleo-Indian site there is in fact a perfectly reliable radiocarbon date of ~ 26,600 bp rcy obtained in 1985 (6). It is common knowledge in the archaeological community that PaleoIndian artifacts are distinctive, and cultural markers of a "window in time." Since the Lewisville site is "at least" 26,000 years old, younger Paleo-Indian radiocarbon dates cannot possibly be correct, and the construct that maintains Paleo-Indian is confined to ~ 12,000 years therefore also must be incorrect, and should be discarded immediately. Using common sense, if prehistoric peoples arrived in North America first and then migrated to Central and South America, 14C dates at lower latitudes "must be" younger. In fact, South American radiocarbon dates approach ~ 30,000 bp rcy. Lewisville "fits" while younger Paleo-Indian dates in North America do not, and therefore all must be incorrect (for some reason).
http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (4 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

Radiocarbon dating works "perfectly well." However, it derives dates from the amount of 14C present. But, there definitely are anomalies by latitude/longitude/depth in sediments that authoritative archaeologists have noted for many years. It is clear that both communities are correct, and interdisciplinary collaboration in the pursuit of scientific truth stongly is encouraged. Additionally, this short piece hopefully will serve as a reminder to all, both avocational and otherwise, to be more "open-minded" in the pursuit of patterns to factual scientific data rather than adherence to "dogma," and for everyone to consider data within the broader framework of a holistic (rather than "particularist/reductionist") point of view.

References: 1. Firestone, Richard B. Table of Isotopes, Eighth Edition, 1998 Update (CD ROM, Coral M. Baglin and S.Y. Frank Chu, eds.). 2. Bischoff, James L. 238U/235U ratio measured on chert samples by thermal ionization mass spectrometry. USGS, Menlo Park, 9 July, 2001 (ms. possession of author). 3. Luedtke, Barbara E. An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1992. 4. Jarvis, H. INAA characterization of of Onondaga chert; a preliminary study; in western New York. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1988, referenced in Luedtke. 5. Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan, Philip J. (eds.), The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition. United States Department of Defense and Energy Research and Development Administration; 1977. 6. Shiley, Richard H., Randall E. Hughes, Richard A. Cahill, and Kenneth L. Konopka. Moessbauer Anaysis of Lewisville, Texas, Archaeological Site Lignite and Hearth Samples. Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes 109. Carbondale, Illinois; 1985.

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia (web publication courtesy Bob Kobres). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NOTE: in RED above, this change is current; there "is" a vertical boundary at depth in more northerly latitudes, primarily in Michigan where first discovered, that "exotic ongoing fissions" are taking place; this researcher reverse engineered and despite what would appear to be incontrovertible evidence, the Mallove editorial spells it out in terms of reception by the mainstay. In terms of "neutrons in prehistory," nothing could be much more clear in the above and coupled with that precision and accuracy, there is a more recent test conducted by Becquerel Labs in Canada. This test was designed by this researcher, and thanks to Dr. Allen West who gladly supplied some ivory from mammoths in Alaska, Becquerel was able to do precision gamma runs with Delta Mine ore as a baseline. While the Delta Mine ore sample was much hotter than the test ivory, those results also appear to be accurate, and again completely consistent with "thermal neutron irradiation" of the North American landscape in prehistoric times. The results indicate depleted 235U from ~ 37% in the Delta Mine ore to ~ 15-17% in the ivory. Again, the lack of the full uranium series complicates the calculations somewhat, but those percentages hardly are a mistake and in complete agreement with the above from Phoenix (this latest test PDF available to those who want it, and please send e-mail to solar_crisis@yahoo.com ). The evidence for neutrons in prehistory during the event easily explains the radiocarbon resets in a younger direction, and both mass extinctions and plant mutations, and supports and contributes to the other evidence outlined in the book recommended above. The only other factors to be explained in terms of what happened rest with the characteristics of a giant solar flare, and so the next two items are from NASA web publications which are to the point, and short. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Neutrons do come in/from solar flares.
Courtesy NASA web page, photos unavailable because of "this researcher's" lack of expertise, bold mine. Solar flares are explosions of energetic particles and electromagnetic radiation in the outer atmosphere of the sun. Lessons learned from solar explosions apply to much larger explosions that we see elsewhere in the Universe. Closer to home, these particles from the Sun can cause communications and electrical problems on Earth. Compton was launched just after the last solar maximum, a period of increased solar activity. Fortunately the Sun was still active, and Compton got itself a tan with several large flares in June 1991. In this regard, Compton was following in the footsteps of OSO Orbiting Solar Observatory 7 (1971-'74) and the Gamma-Ray Spectrometer on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-'81, '84-'89), the only other space missions to see gamma-ray emission lines in solar flares.

OSSE detected several nuclear emission lines from a solar flare on June 4, 1991, including lines from iron, magnesium, neon, silicon, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. These give information about the abundances of elements in the ambient coronal gas. EGRET detected a high-energy afterglow from a solar flare on June 11, 1991. No high-energy cutoff was detected, so presumably higher-energy photons were also produced. The emission lasted for at least eight hours after the impulsive phase of the flare. This afterglow may have been due to either continuous acceleration or long-term plasma trapping.

COMPTEL detected neutrons from a solar flare on June 15, 1991. This resulted in the first particle image of any astrophysical source. The Sun may be the only astrophysical source that will ever be imaged in neutrons, since neutrons decay with a half-life of only five minutes. COMPTEL also detected a gamma-ray afterglow from the same flare. In this case, the particles were likely not just accelerated during the impulsive phase at the Solar Flares (CGRO special exhibit).

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/cgro_solarflares.html (1 of 2)3/27/2007 6:05:03 AM Solar Flares (CGRO special exhibit) beginning of the flare, but were continuously accelerated over an extended period of time.
http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (5 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

CGRO Comptel's Neutron Image of the Sun showing solar flare of June 15, 1991 Imagine the Universe is a service of the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), Dr. Nicholas White (Director), within the Astrophysics Science Division (ASD) at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. The Imagine Team Project Leader: Dr. Jim Lochner Curator:Meredith Gibb Responsible NASA Official:Phil Newman All material on this site has been created and updated between 1997-2007. Last Updated: Wednesday, 06-Sep-2006 14:45:25 EDT http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/cgro_solarflares.html (2 of 2)3/27/2007 6:05:03 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Antimatter also comes in/from solar flares.
Courtesy NASA web page, again no photos, bold mine. September 02, 2003- (date of web publication) ANTIMATTER FACTORY ON SUN YIELDS CLUES TO SOLAR EXPLOSIONS The best look yet at how a solar explosion becomes an antimatter factory gave unexpected insights into how the tremendous explosions work. The observation may upset theories about how the explosions, called solar flares, create and destroy antimatter. It also gave surprising details about how they blast subatomic particles to almost the speed of light.Solar flares are among the most powerful explosions in the solar system; the largest can release as much energy as a billion one-megaton nuclear bombs. A team of researchers used NASA's Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) spacecraft to take pictures of a solar flare on July 23, 2002, using the flare's high-energy X-rays and gamma radiation. (The high-energy radiation from the flare is depicted by red and blue contour lines in Item 3. Click on Item 4 to see a movie of the flare with the RHESSI observations (purple, blue, and red areas) superimposed on movies of the flare made by other observatories. For another view of the flare, click on Items 5 and 6 to see a movie made using the SOHO spacecraft. Item 7 is a multi-spacecraft view of a different flare illustrating how observations can be combined to see more than what is observed with one spacecraft alone. Refer to captions in the right column for more detailed descriptions of the images and movies.)"We are taking pictures of flares in an entirely new color, one invisible to the human eye, so we expect surprises, and RHESSI gave us a couple already," said Dr. Robert Lin of the University of California, Berkeley, who is the Principal Investigator for RHESSI.Gamma-rays and X-rays are the most energetic forms of light, with a particle of gamma ray light at the top of the scale carrying millions to billions of times more energy than a particle of visible light. The results are part of a series of papers about the RHESSI observation to be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters October 1.Antimatter annihilates normal matter in a burst of energy, inspiring science fiction writers to use it as a supremely powerful source to propel starships. Current technology only creates minute quantities, usually in miles-long machines employed to smash atoms together, but scientists discovered the July 2002 flare created a half-kilo (about one pound) of antimatter, enough to power the entire United States for two days. According to the RHESSI images and data, this antimatter was not destroyed where expected.

Antimatter is often called the "mirror image" of ordinary matter, because for every type of ordinary matter particle, an antimatter particle can be created that is identical except for an opposite electric charge or other fundamental properties. Antimatter is rare in the present-day universe. However, it can be created in high-speed collisions between particles of ordinary matter, when some of the energy from the collision goes into the production of antimatter. Antimatter is created in flares when the fast-moving particles accelerated during the flare collide with slower particles in the Sun's atmosphere. (Click on Item 1 for a computer animation illustrating how flares accelerate particles to high speeds. Click on Item 2 for a close-up of the collision region.)According to flare theory, these collisions happen in relatively dense regions of the solar atmosphere, because many collisions are required to produce significant amounts of antimatter. Scientists expected that the antimatter would be annihilated near the same places, since there are so many particles of ordinary matter to run into. "Antimatter shouldn't get far," said Dr. Gerald Share of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., lead author of a paper on RHESSI's observations of the antimatter destruction in the July 23 flare.However, in a cosmic version of the shell game, it appears that this flare might have shuffled antimatter around, producing it in one location and destroying it in another. RHESSI allowed the most detailed analysis to date of the gamma rays emitted when antimatter annihilates ordinary matter in the solar atmosphere. The analysis indicates that the flare's antimatter might have been destroyed in regions where high temperatures made the particle density 1,000 times lower than where the antimatter should have been created. Alternatively, perhaps there is no "shell game" at all, and flares are able to create significant amounts of antimatter in less dense regions, or flares somehow may be able to maintain dense regions despite high temperatures, or the antimatter was created "on the run" at high speeds, and the high-speed creation gave the appearance of a high-temperature region, according to the team.Solar flares are also capable of blasting electrically charged particles in the Sun's atmosphere (electrons and ions) to almost the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 km/sec.). The new RHESSI observation revealed that solar flares somehow sort particles, either by their masses or their electric charge, as they propel them to ultra-high speeds. The solar atmosphere is a gas of electrically charged particles (electrons and ions). Since these particles feel magnetic forces, they are constrained to flow along magnetic fields that permeate the Sun's atmosphere. It is believed that solar flares happen when magnetic fields in the Sun's atmosphere become twisted and suddenly snap to a new configuration, like a rubber band breaking when overstretched. This is called magnetic reconnection (represented by the orange lines that come together and break in Item 1).Previously, scientists believed that the particles in the solar atmosphere were accelerated when they were dragged along with the magnetic field as it snapped to a new shape, like a stone in a slingshot. However, if it were this simple, all the particles would be shot in the same direction. The new observations from RHESSI show that this is not so; heavier particles (ions) end up in a different location than lighter particles (electrons)." The result is as surprising as gold miners blasting a cliff face and discovering that the explosion threw all the dirt in one direction and all the gold in another direction," said Dr. Craig DeForest, a solar researcher at the South West Research Inst. Boulder, Colo.The means by which flares sort particles by mass is unknown; there are many possible mechanisms, according to the team. Alternatively, the particles could be sorted by their electric charge, since ions are positively charged and electrons negatively charged. If this is so, an electric field would have to be generated in the flare, since particles move in different directions in an electric
http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (6 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

field according to their charge. In either case, magnetic reconnection still provides the energy, but the acceleration process is more complex. The clue that tipped scientists off to this surprising behavior was the RHESSI observation that gamma rays from the July 23 flare were not emitted from the same locations that emitted the X-rays, as theory predicts.

According to solar flare theories, electrons and ions are accelerated to high-speeds during the flare and race down arch-shaped magnetic structures. The electrons slam into the denser solar atmosphere near the two footpoints of the arches, emitting X-rays when they encounter electrically charged protons there that deflect them. (Refer to Item 2 for a close-up view of the collision region.) Gamma rays should be emitted from the same locations when the high-speed ions also crash into these regions.While RHESSI observed two X-ray emitting regions at the footpoints, as expected, it only detected a diffuse gamma-ray glow centered at a different location some 15,000 kilometers (approximately 9,300 miles) south of the X-ray sites."Each new discovery shows we are only just beginning to understand what happens in these gigantic explosions," said Dr. Brian Dennis of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., who is the Mission Scientist for RHESSI. RHESSI was launched February 5, 2002, with the University of California, Berkeley, responsible for most aspects of the mission, and NASA Goddard responsible for program management and technical oversight. For a list of the scientific papers from this observation and the researchers involved, refer to: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/rhessi/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Alternate nuclear energy through reduction of "mean free path" and "critical mass" down to almost nothing.
The Mallove editorial (he now is murdered, last known unsolved), all bold mine.

Astronomical-Archeological Anomalies on Two Planets
Eugene Mallove

We are proud to present the following remarkable scientific papers, which we anticipate will stimulate IE readers and provoke controversy: "Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times" by R, Firestone and W, Topping

It happens that the articles concern archeo-astronomical anom-alies on two planets, Earth and Mars, hence this combined intro-duction. The first article, which I believe may have significant direct energy implications (as well as significant global security implica-tions), is reprinted with kind permission from the peer-reviewed archeology quarterly news magazine, Mammoth Trumpet. We are sorry to report that the second article, despite its extremely careful scientific treatment of controversial images gathered by NASA spacecraft, was rejected outright by Nature magazine (and subsequently by Science), apparently because such a topic—possible artifacts on the Martian surface—is a priori "off limits" to discussion in those esteemed journals. In other words, those publications each have, in effect, an Index of Forbidden Topics. This was a scientific discovery in its own right: that these "journals of record" have particular top-ics which the editorial staffs have determined do not warrant pro-cessing by their so-called peer-review systems. That was confirmed orally in the case of Nature, by the words of a London-based editor. For Science, its Index was discovered de facto. We hereby issue this challenge to Nature and Science: Publish your index of forbidden topics so that your time and energy and that of frontier scientists will no longer be wasted! (We trust that cold fusion and all new energy experiments and theories are on these lists, but who knows?)

For many months, this editor has been in contact with co-author of the first paper, Dr. William Topping, whose Ph.D. is in archaeology. In addition to the article which we publish here, Dr. Topping has done extensive gamma ray and calorimetric testing of a possible new nuclear process, which he (not his co-author) derived by "reverse-engineering" the apparently natural, catastrophic astronomical process—the hypothetical one that gave rise, in part, to the widespread nuclear dating anomaly that he and R.B. Firestone of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report in the reprinted article. He has not published those results, but has shared them with me and others.

The process, if Topping's characterization is valid, may be described as "micro-fission," the ability of certain material coatings of uranium-containing particles to participate in heat generation and radioactive nuclide-producing reactions. The small-scale laboratory demonstrations of this alleged process produce persisting temperature elevations above ambient in small dewar vessels containing nuclear moderating materials and specially engineered particulates. The perhaps unwelcome finding of these experiments—if they are valid—is that fissionable materials (such as U235 and Pu239) might be created in quantity by relatively simple means. Dr. Topping summarized his process to me recently: "Thousands of gamma runs, and associated radiochemistry, suggest that a new fission process has been developed. In particular, 'gamma flash' tests which assume ~ 25 gammas from each fission of U235 (or other isotope) indicated that depending on the particular degree of moderation and other factors, the 'critical mass' and 'mean free path' required for fissions can be substantially reduced. Most interesting, it appears that protactinium is being destroyed by neutron capture, and in turn that uranium is manufactured through the protactinium series." Dr. Topping brought this matter to the attention of numerous Federal agencies (FBI, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, etc.) and has been met with stony silence and lack of interest. Either the officials do not believe his results a priori, or they are too inept to recognize the serious implications of the alleged process—both beneficial and destructive. Furthermore, efforts by Topping to interest companies involved with fission nuclear power and materials processing have come to naught.

The more direct implications of the Topping-Firestone article are dramatic as well. To explain the archeological anomalies of too young carbon-14 dates in artifacts from particular strata the authors offer as one
http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (7 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

The evidence for neutrons in an

possibility the irradiation by a nearby supernova in pre-historic times, which might have caused the carbon clock re-setting as well as the anomalous distortion of U235/U238 abundance ratio. They also write, "Much of what we assume about the Paleoindian period and the peopling of the Americas has been inferred from conventional radiocarbon chronology, which often conflicts with archeological evidence. This work mandates that conventional radiocarbon dates be re-interpreted in light of hard terrestrial evidence of exposure of the radiocarbon samples to a cosmological catastrophe that affected vast areas of North America and beyond."

Concerning the imagery from the Cvdonia region of Mars assessed by astronomer Tom Van Flandern and his group in their paper (and in extensive website material referenced therein), in particular the "Mars face” mesa, it is in my view a compelling analysis. Each reader will draw his or her own conclusions about the strength of the arguments in the article. However, it seems to this editor more likely than not that an extraterrestrial culture, of unknown origin and fate, performed large-scale surface modification of the Martian surface. Certainly, the possibility of extraterrestrial artifacts on Mars deserves most thorough investigation before ruling it out. Obviously, given the inappropriate reaction of mainstream scientists such as populate the established organs Nature and SCIENCE, is not happening. The marginalization of these potential artifacts by NASA, JPL, and the so-called SETI community (seekers of microwave or optical signals from beyond the Solar System) is pathetic and unscientific. But it is they who control and influence the major sources of funding, both public and private. "Evidence of Planetary Artifacts" by T. Van Flandern et al. In last issue's "Eclectic Observer" section, we discussed the emerging significant evidence for extant life forms on Mars. These lines of evidence receive only slightly better treatment main -stream. The good news is that the inexorably expanding exploration of the Solar System, Mars in particular, is likely to provide welcome answers to these questions—in spite of the obstructions by the critics. It is sad but true that earlier recognition of these tantalizing findings might have prompted much greater planetary space exploration by now. Ironically, the very promoters of increased planetary exploration have been the greatest obstacle to progress in the search for extraterrestrial life—just as the best funded promoters of fusion energy, the hot fusioneers, have been the greatest enemies of the most workable fusion process, cold fusion. It appears that homo absurdus is the truly dominant species beautiful blue-green world. • • • 14 ISSUE 4O, 20O1 INFINITE ENERGY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://joehaydn.org/prehistoric_neutrons.htm (8 of 8)5/21/2007 9:23:47 PM

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful