Chicxulub Drilling debates, Is the Chicxulub crater the KT boundary killer or Not? Query by Markus Harting and Reply by Smit |
Sir, I have my reservations about how to recognize fluidization or and resulting slump-structures in the Mendez marls by geochemistry, microscopy, mineralogy and laboratory studies. It is only in the field that one can recognize these and I invite Markus Harting to again have a closer look at the unmistakable evidence for slumping at Rancho Nuevo (image 1). On the side of the channels there is ample evidence for syn-sedimentary oversteepening of the channel walls. I include here an image of such a slump taken just below the criticized 'diapirs' The picture (Fig. c of Smit) of the Rancho Nuevo channels was taken as much as possible parallel to the longest axis of the two channels (see inset image 2), in order to avoid such a "result of the unique view across, and as a cross section, of the channelized siliciclastic deposit". The diapiric movements of the top layers of the Mendez are real, not an artifact of the figure. Also, the presence of "well preserved ejecta" (actually not well preserved, all tektite glass is altered no matter in what layer) in the supposed lower primary layer is also well visible at the Mimbral site. Well preserved (i.e. not flattened) spherules occur adjacent to sublayers with flattened green spherules. All spherule layers in eastern Mexico are reworked, there is no primary layer left. I have no objection against multiple spherule horizons. I have given my interpretation of the 'multiplets': they are alternations of soft Mendez-clast rich and spherule rich aggradational layers, not separate events separated by thousands of years.
|
Look here for the Yaxcopoil-1 core segment 793.85 to 794.60 m: the transition of the impact to post-impact crater infill, |