Byrd Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Exactly! And an explosion will break it up even
> more.
>
> Another reason why it is not correct is the
> pattern of "who died." This "comet" killed the
> short-faced bear (supposedly) but not the grizzly
> bear which is the same size and ate the same thing
> and lived in the same area.
>
> If it had caused a climate disaster or other
> disaster in the area, things with the same food
> sources and living areas would have all died.
> The puzzle is that the creatures that died did so
> o all around the world... but with no real
> pattern. So a gigantic explosion in the arctic
> isn't the answer.


So the “comet” is really an awful theory. But is so clear that I found disappointing that Graham Hancock is so into this theory. I always think his theories are so great and now this comet one is
Sad for a fan. I always believed in something and then I read Hancock writing about it and it was a perfect match. But now the comet is so foolish.
What you explained made a lot of sense.

Cintia Panizza
——————————-

"Happiness is only real when shared."
Christopher McCandless