>No, not subaqueously. My neice and nephew grew up on a farm in SW Nebraska
>in an area known as the sand hills. Geologically about a thousand years ago
>Western Nebraska was a desert with dunes. Even in the 30s my former sister
>in law tells me that the dunes started moving again and covered some farm
>houses. Today the huge sand dunes are covered with grass which stabilizes
>them. When it rains hard, the slopes fail and then they bury things. The
>following is from the New York Times account of this issue which gives stuff
>the Geology article doesn't.
O.K. I'll take the challenge. The deposit covers a hundred of square km.
Would you choose to explain the destruction of thousands of dinosaurs all
in the same layer in an area of 100 sq km by individual chance slumps of
dunes in a time frame that puts them all in the same stratigraphic unit, or
by a subaqueous debris flow that covered a huge area bringing in cobbles
too big to have been transported by wind? It is important to look at the
data, not just the interpretations. I know when you have been given the
challenge of advising on acquisition of a new lease, you don't just take
the word of other people on whether it is worthwhile or not. You go to the
heart of the data and reevaluate the data yourself. And I'll bet you dont
always end up agreeing with the assessment of others. And this is in an
area where there are no philosophical issues (unless you consider your job
to be philosophical...). Also, remember, no fossil vegetation anywhere in
the deposit. This is a catastrophic burial that demands water, a lot of
it, water that can bring in cobbles as well as sand in a debris flow.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu