Prehistoric meteor shower? Options

[dburt]

If I understood well, this refers mainly to a 12,9 ka impact that seems to have been proposed by the same author in different abstracts of the same (?) conference. I think these abstracts are not available yet on the net.

The abstract which is the subject of this thread refers to a supposed 30-35 ka impact. Would not a "normal constant infall of sand-sized micrometeorites " result in a more common occurence of mammoth skulls looking like those described in this thread ?

Further comment, made in less of a rush (after looking at the GSA Today article again). Although the original news story refers to the older time period, the more complete BBC story contains the original author quote: "The date could really be anywhere from 13,000 to 35-40,000 years ago." and the reporter then states, "The team believes there must still be peppered tusks out there that can be dated to 13,000 years ago." Certainly the authors (Firestone et al.) are the same and their hypothesis is the same. The mega-tsunami part of the GSA Today article actually refers to more recent (Holocene, or latest 10,000 years) alleged impact events - my memory over the weekend was faulty. And I freely admit I still haven't read the original AGU abstracts or AGU poster.

-- HDP Don

[TheChemist]

Thanks Don, I had a look at the AGU abstract, and the Science and GSA today articles, but I had missed the BBC article.
So now that I have read that too, it is clear to me, that the authors claim that since the skulls might be exposed and marked later with the fragments, it could be that there is a single Holocene event that explains the older marked skull too.
They are still far away from proving anything, but whether they are wrong or not is still a matter of scientific debate, at least imho.
Science takes time, and one never knows what's unearthed in the future.