[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type

To: gautam@majumdar.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type
From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 19:57:13 -0800
Cc: Dinosaur@usc.edu
In-reply-to: <vZhGdCAAwcU2EwF+@majumdar.demon.co.uk>
References: <001301be1237$4ef605c0$84ac61cc@larryf>
Reply-to: sarima@ix.netcom.com
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

At 07:18 PM 11/17/98 +0000, Gautam Majumdar wrote:
>Well, it appears that not many people accept it as an impact crater. I
asked in
>sci.geo.geology if any other geologist thinks that it is an impact crater
- got no
>positive reply.
>
While I am not on the level of professionals, I, too, found Chatterjee's
case for this being a crater less than satisfactory.

I think the structure is more likely related to the onset of the Deccan
volcanic sequence, or to a change in style within it.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com

References:
- Re:Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type
  - From: "Larry Febo" <larryf@capital.net>
- Re: Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type
  - From: Gautam Majumdar <gautam@majumdar.demon.co.uk>

Prev by Date: Suchomimus
Next by Date: Re: [Suchomimus tenerensis]
Previous by thread: Re: Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type
Next by thread: Re:Isotopic Evidence for the K-T Impactor and Its Type
Indexes: