Talk:Burckle Crater

Location of the chevron dunes

I would like to see the dunes, is it possible to list latitude and longitude of the formations which give support to this thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.246.208 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor crater photo

This is a bit misleading. swyves190.21.141.125 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date

My bullshit detector rang on this :
"The Holocene Impact Working Group think that it was created about 5,000 years ago (c. 2800-3000 BC) or on the morning of May 10, 2807 B.C. [2]"
(reference being "Bruce Masse, environmental archaeologist; Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico; More-Marya")
A 200-year span or a precise day within that span ? A precise day and even part of the day 5,000 years ago ?
Acurate human record dating that far back is extremely unlikely, moreso going unnoticed so far despite being tied to a major catastrophe. In the unlikely case that there actualy is something, it deserves clarifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaran (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The precise date was arrived at from a combination of a number of mythological sources which describe the following circumstances: the spring; full moon; the reigns of named rulers, and a planetary conjunction. I can't comment on the reliability of any of the astronomical calculations, but it's described in this article:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/climatechange/a/masse_king_3.htm

The approximate date I'm guessing is from geological considerations. The flood at Shuruppag has been radiocarbon dated to about 2900BC but I don't know what the error is on that. The date given for the reign of Semerkhet is dubious, however; and the reign of Nu Wa even more so. Moon Oracle (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mythological sources. The very definition of good science. Kortoso (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "precise" date was based on a Hindu myth that tied the flooding to a planetary alignment that only happened once in 5000 years on May 10, 2807 B.C. and a Chinese history that places the event during the later years of the rule of Empress Nu Wa.

The Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh mentions a black column in the south before the rain and flooding started...

The author of the study, Bruce Masse, fully acknowledged that the precise dating based on mythology is highly suspect but provides possible contextual evidence. 103.14.95.242 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existence verified?

Has this undersea crater actually been observed? I don't assume directly, but is there a clear radar/sonar/gravitational map of this area? The article starts with:

"Burckle Crater is an undersea crater the Holocene Impact Working Group consider likely to have been formed by a very large scale and relatively recent..."

This implies that it does exist and that the HIWG is only purporting how it was created. I have searched their site extensively and other online resources and have not found anything that establishes that a crater actually exists there on the ocean floor. This should be fairly easy for those in geology and related fields to add to the article. Until then I suggest the opening be re-written:

"Burckle Crater is the name given by the Holocene Impact Working Group to a (hypothetical/yet to be discovered) crater purported to have been formed by a very large scale and relatively recent..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.98.249 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be really curious too. My sceptic alarm rings like crazy when I read about this research. In fact, they have far less evidence in their hands than the "Younger Dryas Impact Theory guys". This whole research group is for me just really bizzare. In the NyTimes article from 2006, they claimed, they used Google Earth for the research of Chevron Dunes. I know that in 2006, it was interesting new technology, but I think in 2024, research based on scrolling through Google Earth seems more like an high school project rather than serious research.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html Patmull (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Burckle"? What does the word signify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.239.148 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Burckle was one of the authors on the original 2005 study:

"Burckle Abyssal Impact Crater: Did this Impact Produce a Global Deluge?"

Dallas H. Abbott, Lloyd Burckle, and Perri Gerard-Little

Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964

W. Bruce Masse Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545

Dee Breger Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 103.14.95.242 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legend

At this point then legend section is just speculation. The source provided to back this section up didn't do so. I have blanked the section as it didn't add actual information to this page.Donhoraldo (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I beg to diver. Almost everything in the theology related articles is essentially speculation. The article Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses also doesn't contain hard evidence. The part about the Great Flood legends was very interesting for me, and I think for a lot of other readers also. The speculation was made by a member of the team that discovered this. So, wether it is true or not, I think it is relevant. Ofcourse, we have to highlight that it is just the opinion of the researcher.Bastion Monk (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to reread the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not to bulster fringe theories.Donhoraldo (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a VERRRYYY iffy article, even for wikipedia. "Burckle crater" is not even close to accepted in the scientific community, and posting it to wiki borders on sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrocephalus (talk • contribs) 06:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Flood

There was some information concerning that the Burkle Creator was a meteorite impact event that may have caused the Noah's Flood. Why was that removed?

Throttler (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Noah's Flood never happened. 216.246.137.151 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources provided for this article lack any widely accepted evidence that a megatsunamis was created by this impact. Also, the claim that this event was connected specifically with the "Noah's Flood" legend is speculation that lacks any solid arguments and acceptance. This hypothesized impact is just one of many other unproven claims, i.e. the Black Sea deluge hypothesis, for a specific event being the source of the Noah's Flood legend. This claim needs more than just unsubstantiated speculation in either a press release, news story, or article to be considered reliable and notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia given the innumerable other different events that other people have claimed to be the source of the "Noah's Flood" legend. Paul H. (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reason for removing this material has been previously discussed in the "Legend" section of this talk page. Paul H. (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that Noahs flood didnt happen because we have plenty of evidence that it did. 67.161.110.138 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know everything

The scientists say that burckle crater took place between c.3000 and c.2800 BCE. scientists say that the early dynastic period of egypt began between 3100 and 3000 bc. according to the creed that mizraim son of ham is Menes and according to the map of burckle crater that says only a part of egypt went under water we can say that burckle crater took place at 3000 bc and upper egypt destroyed. then mizraim went to upper egypt and lower egyptians said that this is our kingdom now so Menes killed the last king of lower Egypt and became the king of egypt.

How does wikipedia...

How does wikipedia define scientific community? Is wikipedia only using scientists from Western countries or do Russian and Chinese scientists not count? 67.161.110.138 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]