I have the pdf (thanks LASJayhawk for linking earlier) saved on HD because i wanted to be objective about it. It is 51 pages. I have only briefly seen major points of it and want to read it better. I dont know if it is legal to email it to you but if you think it is and the author had no problem with it i can email it if you pm me or maybe i can email it to LASJayhawk and he could post it on a file sharing legal website (any ideas what that can be? Yahoo briefcase is no longer available, Google drive maybe, what is a file equivalent for photobucket?).
My opinion on the paper is that its not at all proper science and the majority of the paper focuses on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia....22pyramids.22 which is complete fabrication by human imagination as more recent pictures show and unacceptable to be part of a paper about isotopes and to include on it also archaeological sites on earth like those on ancient aliens shows from history channel, basically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken kind of material and correlations suggested with ancient Egyptian pyramids and assumed ones "seen" in Viking pics of Mars (he then even suggests similarities with US pentagon lol) . But then how on earth does it fit that he is talking about a 500 mil years ago event that destroyed a civilization that then appears with similarities in Egypt and elsewhere only 5k-10k years ago (that implies it wasnt destroyed completely and they waited 500 mil years lol to "contact" and now they are nowhere to be seen ok sure).
Proper isotope analysis requires to take a profile of isotopes on all planets studied or as result of supernova explosion models and then time evolve them (study all chains and present all known natural processes to the reader) and spot any inconsistencies that might indicate artificial creation (like eg with our case and plutonium but of course need something much longer in half life). As far as i have seen i am not convinced about this isotope presentation because not all data needed is properly presented or linked to independent databases with crystal clear evidence that no natural processes can create them.
Basically what i say is this. If i had to present such a theory i would make it my goal to teach all readers about all isotopes involved as much as i can and link all kinds of 3rd parties. I would make it my goal to remove any doubt it could be something else that created the ratios. And i would most certainly not spend 2/3 of the paper talking history channel material in a paper on isotopes and talking about how erosion changes the monuments on Mars to look altered and not perfect (ie requiring our imagination to see things), similar to how the Egyptian sculptures and architecture external looks evolved in time with erosion (give me a break 5k years with 500 mil? even on 1% the atmosphere its still 100000 bigger time frames and totally different systems and by the way why would a massive civilization have large stone structures for monuments and not something better and more mathematical/symbolic to remove any doubt).
Also the journal of cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology is often questioned for its scientific integrity. (all you have to do is look at the articles posted there and you will see what i mean, its a mix of science, pseudo science and conspiracy theory material in my opinion and its not at all related to the other regular academic research journals, although it tries to look a lot better than the usual suspects lol, and i am not a person that will skip reading and consider only external details like who posted where and how etc. But it cant be completely ignored either and enhances skepticism because it does have a feel of outer limits kind of conspiratorial sci fi mentality.)
Last edited by masque de Z; 11-29-2014 at 03:12 PM.