“What are your thoughts on Noah?”

This past weekend I was the guest on a TV program that will air in a few months. I spent quite a bit of time preparing for my appearance, and I assumed that the host would have prepared for it, too. I had provided to the show’s staff an outline, including pertinent questions, for how I envisioned that the interview might proceed, so it was not an unrealistic expectation.

Unfortunately for me, the host was unprepared. As a consequence, he did not grasp the importance of my primary finding, the unambiguous and historic error committed by Sedgwick nearly 200 years ago that has all of science believing that there was never a worldwide flood. I was very clear: “no flood, ever” is not the same as “presently exposed landscapes were never flooded.” I was looking the host in the eye as I explained this important matter, and what I observed was a complete lack of comprehension, if not utter vacuity. (I’m shaking my head as I type this.)

Perhaps half way through the interview, the host stated enthusiastically, “I love the Noah story!” Rather than focusing on the science, he instead pressed the matter by asking, “What are your thoughts on Noah?”

I am somewhat amazed by the speed at which possible responses – and their consequences – went through my head (Refuse to answer? How would that appear? Do I want a confrontation?). Turns out that I had anticipated such a question, so I decided to convey my thoughts on Noah as concisely as as possible. I hope that the producers will retain it for broadcast.

This incident got me to thinking that it might be worthwhile to share my thoughts about the legend of Noah. Here they are:

– If biblical time is taken to begin roughly 3000 years before present, then the legend of Noah precedes it by 10,000 years.

– Although flood legends are found in cultures around the planet, the Noah story,  essentially that of a flood survivor with a large craft, originates from the Mediterranean Sea region.

– About which: a 2009 article in Nature identifies that the Med flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar. Several news articles (such as this) depict the region’s appearance prior to the flooding, and it is shown in the figure, below. Notice that there was a sea at the bottom of the pre-flood western Med.

Western Med flood image associated with Nature paper 16Oct2018

– I had prepared this next figure for the show. It contains two identical maps of the western Mediterranean Sea. On the lower map I have superimposed a white outline that approximates the pre-flood shoreline in the previous figure. Note that river drainage systems from formerly upland regions can be identified in the blue areas above the white outline. All of them became preserved in the bathymetry after the Med flooded through the Strait. Furthermore, we note that the rivers’ erosive action ceased at the white outline. This is important, for it establishes a contradiction in published articles – Nature correctly recognizes that the erosion stopped at the former sea level, yet, in contradiction, we are expected to believe that submerged systems everywhere outside the Med were carved by phantom subsurface flows…. But I digress. Back to Noah.

Western Med flood image w ouline of former sea extent 17Oct2018

– Note: although the Nature article captures the correct mechanism by which the Med flooded, the authors have the timing of the event grossly incorrect. The Med flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar 12,800 years before present at the Younger-Dryas boundary as a consequence of the IO’s impact in the Southern Ocean and the subsequent worldwide flood brought by its melted ice (IO? see first sentence of second paragraph here).

– I contend that Noah floated his boat in this pre-flood western Mediterranean Sea. Perhaps he traded animals and moved them to various ports? Whatever commerce he might have practiced is immaterial, for he did not save all the animals on the planet.

– Much like the Haida Gwaii, Noah survived because he was a pre-flood seafarer with a craft.

– Due to the altitude of the Strait’s flood water passage region, roughly 200m below present sea level (identified in the Nature article), the Med would have been the last major basin on Earth to flood.

– While the Med flooded, there would have been a cessation in the rise of the flood waters elsewhere around the planet.

– Related: the Haida Gwaii survived by keeping up with the eastern migration of the Pacific Ocean’s shoreline. While the Med flooded, the Haida Gwaii survivors would have recognized the cessation in the waters’ rise, and, perhaps thinking that the flooding had ceased, they set up camp about 100m above the shore. (Wouldn’t you?) This would put the campsite about 100m below final (present) sea level where their artifacts were recently discovered (mentioned in the link, above). Then, once the Med was completely flooded, the worldwide rise in all contiguous seas and oceans began again, so they returned to their survival crafts until present sea level was attained.

– After the IO’s impact, yet before the flooding through the Strait, human inhabitants of the western Med would have noticed dramatic environmental changes that included earthquakes, prolonged cold, and rains. I suspect that it took a bit more than forty days of melting before the flood waters reached the Strait, but it was somewhere on the order of months. During this time Noah would have observed the rains and other post-impact effects. But let us be clear: it was the IO’s melted ice that caused the flood and not the rain.

– Once the sea waters attained their present state, Noah eventually landed on some island in the post-flood Mediterranean Sea. Candidate locations include Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, etc. Perhaps one of these islands was previously known as Ararat?

Articles and Their Descriptions

Dear Reader,

My intent in establishing this site was two-fold: (1) chronicle findings regarding the worldwide flood, and (2) find someone or some entity with assets capable of investigating the deep ocean bottom for signs of human activity (or financing such an investigation), because finding remnants of human activity in the deep abyss would immediately and forever end the flood/“no-flood ever” debate. In addition, it would put to rest the bad science that geologists propagate as a consequence of their nearly 200-year old “no flood, ever” error.

About which, please be mindful that the following statement is indisputable: geologists erred 200 years ago when they concluded that there was never a flood. From the evidence before them, they could only have concluded that presently exposed landscapes were never flooded by a common event, something that is undeniably true. Instead, they concluded that there was never a flood thereby assuming that all Earth’s waters have been here since the beginning. Upon reflection, you will likely agree that “no flood, ever” is the biggest mistake in the history of science. Sadly, it persists to the present.

To undo geology’s mess, the following posts capture and augment materials in my book. Some posts are directed at the science (and the error) whereas others address matters from a somewhat more anthropological standpoint.

Retraction Request Made to the Geological Society of London – I present an email exchange that demonstrates geologists’ intransigence regarding their commission of the most profound error in the history of science.

Letter to the Editors, Journal of Geology – I write to the editors of the journal that published “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ~12,800 Years Ago” to identify two very important shortcomings in the article.

Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth – As the telescope led to the end of geocentrism, so the new data (e.g. Google Earth) nullify geology’s prevailing paradigm that has us all believing that there was never a worldwide flood.

The Flood Waters: Source, Analysis, Remembrances – I use maps, recent scholarly publications, and some basic mathematics to determine the amount of water delivered by a cosmic impact nearly 13,000 years before present; we augment the analysis with historical accounts of the incident.

Scientific Paper: The Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact – My submission to the Geological Society of London, 6 Jan 2018. In an earlier post, I presented an email exchange with the journal’s editors, requesting that they retract their predecessor’s historic error. They refused, claiming that such matters are left to be superseded by evidence. This paper presents such evidence, so I submitted it to them. They refused to publish it, not because of its content but rather because of its style.

It Would Look Exactly Like a River System – A geologist describes the submerged topographic features: they are submerged rivers. Yet they think that they were carved by sub-surface processes, an act of anti-science as they are fitting observations (the submerged rivers) to geology’s theory that there was never a worldwide flood – a theory  shown to be erroneous.

Expedition Atlantis – I complement Plato’s description of Atlantis with map data to lay the foundation for an expedition to discover the city’s remnants and forever put to rest the idea that there was never a worldwide flood.

Eyewitness Account of the Impact that Delivered the Worldwide Flood – Cave paintings found near Fouriesburg, South Africa, depict an eye-witness’s account of the object that delivered the flood. The painting captures the impacting object’s split as it neared impact – which led to the gap in the impact crescent.

Two Interviews – I appeared as the guest on two radio programs, and they can be accessed at the following links:

  1. http://midnightinthedesert.com/michael-jaye/
  2. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/earthancients/2018/08/03/michael-jaye-phd-the-worldwide-flood

A Submission to Anthropologists – I submitted a paper to an on-line journal dealing with anthropology. It was declined; however, it might be of interest since anthropology is as wholly screwed up as is geology.

Eyewitness Account of the Impact that Delivered the Worldwide Flood

Recently, I came across a Linkedin post by Jim Davidson titled, “10,000 BC – A Cosmic Event” (available here). In the post he shows photos of cave paintings taken near Fouriesburg, South Africa. One of the paintings depicts what he calls a “two-headed comet” as it enters Earth atmosphere, just prior to impact. The image, below, is taken from his post, and it shows a very long comet tail (light horizontal line near top third of image), as well as the two-headed comet. Note that the painting depicts the object moving from right to left – an important observation!

Cave painting Fouriesburg South AfricaHere is a closer look at the bifurcated comet – it is somewhat difficult to discern the second head, but it is moving downward (below) the more easily identifiable upper head.

IO split captured on cave in South AfricaOn the close-up image, I overlay yellow circles on the bifurcated heads, as well as lines over the comet’s lengthy tail.

Split with overlain pathsNext is a Google Earth map depicting the impact site, as well as the location of Fouriesburg, South Africa (white cross). Note the gap in the impact crescent.

Fouriesburg SA with impact site 17Aug2018In earlier posts I ascribe the impact crescent gap to the loosely packed nature of the IO (impacting object). It is loosely packed due to relatively small gravitational accelerations induced by its solid, dense central core in the Oort Cloud where the IO formed. (The IO’s solid core carved the trough that we see in the central part of the impact crescent.) The loosely packed IO’s interaction with Earth’s atmosphere, compounded by its acceleration caused by Earth’s gravity, are the primary causes of the IO’s breakup into two major parts as it approached impact. Thus, the crescent gap and its disjoint arcs.

By the way, this impact delivered the worldwide flood, and caused the many (documented) environmental changes to presently exposed landscapes that geologists ascribed to a Younger-Dryas impact. They will eventually realize that the worldwide flood induced the YD ecosystem changes.

On the previous image, I’ve overlain the impact crescents (white arcs) and the IO’s central core’s path (red arrow).

Fouriesburg SA with impact site and overlays 17Aug2018To an observer in Fouriesburg, South Africa, the IO would have approached Earth from the observer’s right to left, as in the cave painting. Thus, the cave painting is an eye witness account of the IO impact.

Its very long tail was caused by IO break-up as it approached impact, its many fragments illuminated by the sun (the IO was tens of thousands of times larger than a typical comet, so imagine how its tail appeared on final approach). A corroborating recollection in the human tradition is the Chinese New Year dragon, an illuminated serpent above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth. Like the cave painting, the dragon also commemorates the worldwide flood that the IO delivered.

Chinese New Year Dragon w water coming from mouthAs mentioned in earlier posts, IO ice fragment impact craters can be found along the impact path, which we can identify by back-propagating the impact trough. Thus, we find the craters not only in North America (that geologists wrongly ascribe to some phantom ice sheet impact) but in South America, too, particularly in southern Argentina, as shown on the next map.

SA impact cratersIn closing, there was a worldwide flood, and it was delivered by a cosmic impact roughly 12,800 years before present. Its waters, more than two miles worth, flooded the planet from the former abyss upward. The worldwide flood that the IO delivered completely changed the ecosystems on presently exposed landscapes (Younger-Dryas effects), and it nearly killed our species.

Yet we recognize none of this because of geology’s erroneous yet pervasive “no flood, ever” paradigm.

“…it would look exactly like a river system….”

The publication of Google Maps/Earth enables us to see the topography of the ocean basins where we find structures that look exactly like river systems, many of which extend hundreds of miles away from continental shelves and into abyssal plains. Those familiar with fluid flow would immediately realize that it is impossible for concentrated flows to persist over such distances through the dense, watery medium. Yet geologists would have us believe that the submerged rivers were carved by subsurface processes….

Such a belief is bunk masquerading as science.

Geologists screwed up nearly 200 years ago when they concluded that there was never a worldwide flood. As a consequence, all of science misunderstands not only the mechanism by which the submerged rivers formed, but Earth and human history as well.

This post’s title is in quotation marks because it is taken from a geologist’s comment about Monterey Canyon. I wrote to that individual, as well as several other geologists, a version of the following letter:

In a relatively recent BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170706-the-mystery-of-the-massive-deep-sea-rivers), geologist Daniel Parsons is quoted as saying about Monterey Canyon (off the coast of California), “If you drained all the water away, it would look exactly like a river system with bends and meanders, except there are not trees along the banks.” This is quite an observation, one I made nearly ten years ago when Google Maps (satellite view) were published.

It is disappointing that Parsons and other geologists (like Peakall, mentioned in the linked article) attempt to fit the structure’s formation into geology’s prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm. Thomas Kuhn would call this the practice of anti-science.

When I first saw Monterey Canyon, my thought was: how did that river system become submerged? (I am a mathematician – not a geologist, so I was free to ask such an impertinent question.) Certainly, subsurface flows could not remain concentrated over such distances, and straight, gravity-induced flows could never carve the submerged oxbows…. And what process would cause the subsurface flows to “organize”?

The claim that subsurface flows created Monterey Canyon and other similar structures found around the planet prompted me to understand geology’s ‘no flood, ever’ claim. Adam Sedgwick is largely responsible for the belief, formed roughly 200 years ago, and it is based on his search throughout parts of Europe for a common deposit layer, something that could not be found. No deposit layer meant no worldwide flood.

Here we are, nearly two-hundred years later, and all of science is affected by this celebrated finding, hailed as the triumph of science over religion (a misnomer as it would be better described as the triumph of science over the human narrative tradition since flood stories are found in cultures from around the planet). You see, Sedgwick was not only a Cambridge prof, he was also president of the Geo Soc of London, as well as an ordained minister. Such a courageous recantation….

The celebration of ‘no flood, ever’ as such a triumph is quite the irony, for, from the evidence, Sedgwick instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never flooded by a common event. That presently exposed landscapes were never flooded by a common event is absolutely true, but it is far different from the prevailing belief that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick erroneously passed judgment on landscapes that he could not observe.

That the submerged rivers could not be observed until only recently explains ‘no flood, ever’ longevity and associated, deeply rooted condescension toward anyone thinking otherwise. (Thought exercise: imagine a journal editor’s reaction upon receiving a paper that mentions a worldwide flood.)

By claiming that subsurface flows carved Monterey Canyon and other submerged structures, geologists are fitting data/observations (submerged rivers) to the ‘no flood, ever’ theory (which, as shown, is based on a logical error). This is the practice of anti-science, or fantasy. The new map data should have caused geologists to question the ‘no flood, ever’ belief and to correct all the bad science that has followed from it. Sadly, that has not happened.

There was a worldwide flood, it occurred 12,800 ybp, and it was delivered by a cosmic impact. Among its effects are those associated with the YD event. And the flood’s waters quickly preserved the many submerged canyons that we all can observe in the new maps. The flood forever changed the planet, and it nearly killed our species. We find ourselves ill-adapted to the post-flood ecosystem; hence, our need for clothing, shelter, and warmth.

‘No flood, ever’ is unquestionably the most profound error in the history of science. You might read more about the matter at my website: https://theworldwideflood.com/  Or, you could purchase my book, The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. It is available at Amazon.

Let’s be clear, though: this is not about money. Rather, it is about getting humanity to realize that we wholly and completely misunderstand Earth and human history because of geology’s incredible error. Among the profound consequences is that two branches of science, Geology and Anthropology, are fundamentally wrong.

Perhaps you might help to expose the error?


Michael Jaye, PhD


Letter to the Editors, Journal of Geology

Editors, The Journal of Geology                                                                            2 March 2018
University of Chicago Department of Geophysical Sciences
Henry Hinds Laboratory
5734 S. Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637

To the editors:

Your journal recently published “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ~12,800 Years Ago” (Part I. Ice Cores and Glaciers; and Part II. Lake, Marine, and Terrestrial Sediments), which concluded that there was a massive impact 12,800 ybp.  However, the papers fail to identify the most important impact-induced effect, as well as the impact site itself. Each shortcoming is discussed, below (impact site first, followed by the major effect).

The remnants of the impacting object (IO) are found in the Southern Ocean southeast of South Africa, north of Antarctica, and south of Madagascar; the impact center is in the vicinity of 57°S, 53°E. Figure 1 shows the impact site with its diameter superimposed. Note that the diameter is perpendicular to two parallel scrapes interior to the impact crescent.

Impact site with diameterFigure 1. YD impact site in Southern Ocean with superimposed diameter measuring ~2500 km.

Figure 2 displays three views of the impact site from a common, fixed perspective roughly 8,000 km above sea level: the standard Google Earth map image (top), a bathymetry overlay (middle), and a magnetic anomaly overlay (bottom, Korhonen et al. 2007).

Impact site three viewsFigure 2. Identical perspectives of the impact site include: (top) standard Google Earth view with a superimposed diameter measuring 2,500 km; (middle) a bathymetry map depicting raised regions of IO-borne deposits with a superimposed circle identifying nucleus remnants; and (bottom) overlay of magnetic anomalies, from Korhonen et al. (2007), that were created by the impact and its deposited minerals. Magnetic anomalies extend approximately 1,500 km to the northeast through the “crescent” gap.

Having formed in the Oort Cloud, far from gravitational effects from our Sun and other stars, the IO was loosely packed (as are its fragments that we call comets) due to very small gravitational accelerations induced by its dense, solid nucleus. The IO’s outer layer was consistent with known comet composition: porous, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank.” (A’Hearn et al. 2005) Thus, the IO’s constitution accounts for the impact crescent and its gap, and it likens its Earth impact to that of a snowball (with a rock in the middle) hitting a brick wall. All comets we observe would be fragments from the class objects such as the IO.

The impact remnants (central trough, broken crescent) indicate that the IO had a dense, solid core that was surrounded by a porous and fragile outer layer, modeled on Figure 3.

IO schematicFigure 3. The IO had a solid core that attracted and amassed ice, rocks, and other minerals from the Oort Cloud.

Entry effects that broke off portions of the fragile IO account for the gap in the center of the crater’s crescent. Some minerals with positive magnetic susceptibility introduced by the IO were projected nearly 1,500 km to the north and northeast through the crescent gap by impact velocities and associated forces (Figure 2, bottom).  What appear to be parallel central scrapes emanating from the impact center (Figures 2, top and middle) are actually the sides of a trough measuring 1,000 km in length that was carved by the dense nucleus as it skidded northward. This trough corresponds to a band of intense magnetic anomalies (red stripe on Figure 2, bottom) created from materials worn from the nucleus during its immediate, post-impact transit. At the end of the trough are the IO’s nucleus materials (circled region on Figure 2, middle) that served as the gravitational sink needed to attract and aggregate the outer ice and debris layers in the Oort Cloud where the IO is likely to have formed.  Raised regions interior to the crescent are deposit mounds (yellow, orange, and red regions on Figure 2, middle), remnants from the melted mineral-ice complex that comprised the IO’s outer layer. These mounds also correspond to regions of intense magnetic anomalies (Figure 2, bottom).

Geologists presume that a comet struck an ice sheet in North America and projected ice chunks several hundred to more than a thousand miles thereby creating the Carolina Bays and other craters found in North America (e.g. Zamora 2017). Interestingly, but as yet unrecognized by geologists, thousands of similar impact craters are found along the entire length of South America – we can identify them using Google Earth. Some are shown on Figure 4; a list of example craters found in North America and South America is listed in the Appendix.

SA impact cratersFigure 4. IO fragment-created craters of various sizes are shown in this map of coastal Argentina. The long axes of the larger craters measures several km whereas the smaller craters are rougly one-tenth that size. Note the NNE-SSW orientation of the craters.

Clearly, the South American craters could not have been created by an ice sheet impact in North America. The phantom NA comet-on-ice sheet impact would have been H2O on H2O – so, rhetorically, how would carbon-based nanodiamonds have formed?

The correct explanation: the massive and energetic IO-Earth impact created the nanodiamonds. In addition, craters in both North America (e.g. Carolina Bays) and South America were created by IO ice fragments that rained down along the IO’s path just prior to impact. Note the NNW to SSE orientation in most of example SA craters shown on Figure 4. It indicates the overflight direction of the IO immediately prior to impact.

I knew to look for ice chunk-created impact craters in South America because I back-propagated the parallel central scrapes, the sides of a lengthy trough carved by the IO’s solid nucleus. Thus, the IO overflew North America, South America, and Antarctica immediately prior to impact. Its approximate path is shown on Figure 5.

IO impact pathFigure 5. Back-propagating the impact trough’s parallel central scrapes indicates the IO’s pre-impact flight footprint, shown by the white arrow.

It is likely that the IO was displaced by a binary star system that passed through the Oort Cloud roughly 70,000 years before present (Mamajek et al. 2015), was eventually captured by our sun’s gravitational field, and was then brought into Earth’s path. Upon impact, collisions and interactions between energetic IO-borne minerals and terrestrial materials created the YD nano-diamond layer, placing the impact approximately 13,000 years before present (Firestone et al. 2007, Kennett et al. 2015, Kinzie et al. 2014). The heat sink presented by such a volume of ice as delivered by the IO accounts for the sudden, post-impact temperature drop cited in your recent work. Furthermore, the timing and planet-changing consequences of the event have been preserved in the human oral tradition (the last 200 years notwithstanding – more on the matter, below).

With a diameter of 2,500 km, the IO occupied a volume of 5.58 * 109 km3. Given that it was composed as Tempel 1, that is, 75% open space, 2/3 of its mass pure water ice (A’Hearn et al. 2005; Kerr 2005; Sunshine et al. 2007), then 1/6 of the sphere’s volume would be ice. But that ice melted, so we must account for the slight volumetric difference between ice and its melted form; thus, the IO’s equivalent water volume was 1.29 * 109 km3. To approximate the equivalent depth of water delivered, the volume can be divided by the present oceans’ surface area. Since the earth’s oceans are reported to cover 3.62 * 108 km2the IO delivered an average ocean water depth of 3.57 km (more than two miles).

The IO’s waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the abyss upward – they did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. This is a critical observation, for it explains the following map images where, in each of Figure 6(a)-(d) the white arrows identify submerged river systems:

Monterey coast w arrowsFigure 6(a). A Google Earth image of the bathymetry off Monterey, CA.
Alaska w arrowsFigure 6(b). A Google Earth image of the bathymetry off the Gulf of Alaska. Note how the former river in the lower right wove between two submerged volcanoes.
Celtic Sea w arrowsFigure 6(c). A Google Earth image of the Celtic Sea.
Western Med w arrowsFigure 6(d). A Google Earth image of the Western Mediterranean Sea bathymetry.

Geologists believe that these structures were carved by subsurface processes because their science holds that there was never a worldwide flood. This is fitting data (submerged structures) to theory (“no flood”), which exemplifies anti-science. This realization inspired me to investigate the history of geology’s “no flood, ever” paradigm, and it is summarized as follows:

In his 1831 president’s address to the Geological Society of London, Adam Sedgwick renounced his belief in a worldwide flood. He stated, in part:

The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation. (Sedgwick 1831)

It was a celebrated pronouncement, for Sedgwick was not only the Society’s president, but he was also a Cambridge University professor as well as a clergyman in the Church of England. Sedgwick’s recantation had lasting effect: to this day, all of science accepts that there was never a worldwide flood.

Unfortunately, Sedgwick’s ‘no flood, ever’ conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. Whereas it is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that could not be observed until only recently. By assuming that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning, Sedgwick’s error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes might once have been exposed and then flooded, which is exactly what happened at the Younger-Dryas boundary.

An immediate and unfortunate consequence of the historic error: all subsequent geology is potentially (and likely) flawed.

We begin correcting the error by considering pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown on Figure 7. It was created in ArcGIS by removing an estimated average depth of two miles from the present sea level. Humans evolved in the dark tan regions; we are not out of Africa.

Figure6 blogFigure 7. With more than 3 km of water graphically removed, a model of land and sea distributions in pre-flood Earth shows previously exposed but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue).

Vast, pre-flood forested regions would become desiccated by the flood-induced ecosystem changes, and they would burn soon after, likely within decades afterward. Possible fire starters include volcanic activity resulting from the impact, lightning, or survivors’ fires.

The removal of so much water affords the annotation on Figure 8 of the Monterey Canyon map presented earlier. What is now California would have been continuously inundated by rains induced by winds uplifted by the nearly vertical and formerly exposed continental margin. Eventually those rainwaters would be energized by the more than 3 km fall down the shelf, and their scouring interactions would eventually create Monterey Canyon. Identical processes account for the many well-preserved river drainage systems found submerged all over the planet, examples of which are on Figure 6.

Monterey coast annotatedFigure 8. This map displays former drainage systems that are now submerged off the coast of Monterey, CA, in more than three km (two miles) of water.

The combined Monterey Canyon and Big Sur drainages eventually flowed into a collection basin near the system’s terminus approximately 250 km southwest of what is now Moss Landing, California (located very close to Monterey Canyon’s source and just north of the Salinas River’s terminus). After its fall down the shelf, and as it neared the abyssal plain, the Salinas River system carved a prominent oxbow that is 8 km in diameter and located approximately 80 km from the present shoreline.

The straight trail left by a massive landslide caused by the collapse of the oxbow’s southwestern wall is also evident. The collapse was caused by rising ocean waters impinging on the riverbank that had become weakened as the river swelled with rainfall resulting from the cosmic impact. We note that the turbidity flow fell straight down the gravitational gradient and that it did not attempt to organize itself into other pre-existing flows in the area; in addition, its remnants lack any semblance to the other submerged riverbeds in the region. Finally, we note that the region to the left side of Figure 9 is in the abyssal plain where geologists’ presumed gravity currents or persistent turbidity flows could not exist due to the absence of sufficiently steep gradients.

The confluence region depicted on Figure 8 appears somewhat ambiguous or smeared as a consequence of river-borne sediments being deposited into rising floodwaters much like the formation of river deltas. Other river-borne materials that were deposited into the rising ocean waters account for the region’s sediment-filled channels (Fildani and Normark 2004).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has obtained core samples from this confluence region. NOAA reports that the primary composition of the cores’ materials is terrigenous sands, and the secondary composition is terrigenous gravel deposits. In other words, the sediments taken from the confluence region located more than 80 km from shore (and now in more than 3 km of water) are derived from terrestrial environments, not marine environments. Indeed, they were: the sediments were carried and deposited by the pre-flood subaerially flowing river, and they were deposited when its waters met the newly introduced, rising ocean level.

The more northern of the two tributaries indicated on the right side of Figure 8 drained what is now the Big Sur region westward and then to the north of what is now a seamount. This river’s course through abyssal region is somewhat difficult for us to discern on the map because, like the confluence, it is filled with sediments. Since this is a relatively flat region (there was only a 120 m elevation drop over the 40 km it traveled from the shelf toward the confluence), the riverbed is smeared or ambiguous on the map because the abyssal plane through which it flowed became filled by river-borne sediments deposited into newly rising ocean waters.

Quick inundation preserved the former drainages that the new maps reveal. Coupled with the vast new waters and ensuing changes to weather patterns, the IO induced irreversible ecosystem and climatic changes that are known as the YD event.

Imagine how the IO appeared to the ancients as it neared Earth. At 10,000 times the surface area of Halley’s comet and 1,000,000 times its volume, the IO would have had a fiery appearance and an incredibly lengthy tail. It would have dominated the sky, particularly as it neared impact. To the ancients, the illumination from the nucleus and its tail as it approached Earth must have been frightening and memorable, particularly since the flood ensued nearly immediately after its disappearance. Therefore, it is no surprise that we find recollections of the IO in ubiquitous, ancient oral traditions. It is known by names such as Phaeton, Typhon, Set, Ta-vi, and Satan.

Pliny the Elder described Phaeton’s approach: “A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt. It had a fiery appearance and was twisted like a coil, and it was very grim to behold; it was not really a star so much as what might be called a ball of fire.” (Rackham, 1938) According to Allan and Delair (1995), Phaeton “was anciently regarded as a generally round, brilliantly fiery body of appreciable size, and much more star-like or sun-like than conventional comets: and it was held to have in some way caused the Deluge.” The fiery comet-like appearance of the IO as it neared Earth impact and the irreversible changes induced by its flood likely account for the long-held notion that comets are harbingers of change. In addition, the Chinese New Year dragon, a glowing, fiery serpent depicted above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth, shown on Figure 9, is a commemoration and memorialization of the IO’s frightening appearance and effects.

Chinese dragonFigure 9. The Chinese New Year dragon, a fiery serpent above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth, commemorates the IO.

That the worldwide flood and the YD event are synonymous is corroborated by a recent finding in archaeoastronomy wherein an analysis of pillar carvings at Göbekli Tepe “provide evidence that the famous ‘Vulture Stone’ is a date stamp for 10950 BC ± 250 yrs, which corresponds closely to the proposed Younger Dryas event.” (Sweatman and Tsikirsis, 2017) The study also notes that the people of Göbekli Tepe remained interested in the event several thousand years afterward, suggesting that “it had a significant impact on their cultural development.”

[For Barbara Silversten (whose email I could not locate): that the IO was known as Satan makes the Adam and Eve legend but another flood survivor story. Our surviving ancestors were naked because they were adapted to the pre-flood abyssal ecosystem; survival endeavors initiated by the serpent (IO) changed human nature.]

Indeed: similar flood accounts are found in cultures throughout the planet because it wholly transformed the planet and nearly killed our species (the number of human survivors was in the thousands, a number derived from population growth models and pre-industrial age population estimates). Flood accounts passed on from eye witnesses corroborate the science, and they support the simple yet universally overlooked observation: humans are ill-adapted to the post-flood ecosystem, hence our need for clothing, shelter, and warmth.

To summarize:

  • A massive impact 12,800 ybp in what is now the Southern Ocean accounts for the evidence cited in your recent publications.
  • The most important YD impact effect, not included in your paper, is that the IO delivered the worldwide flood waters.
  • The massive IO impact would have created the ubiquitous nanodiamond layer.
  • The massive IO impact would have created an incredible dust cloud.
  • Melting the IO-introduced ice would have been the proximate cause of the temperature drop 12,800 ybp.
  • Irreversible ecosystem changes induced by floodwaters transformed vast, ancient forests into desiccated regions that would have burned not long after the event.
  • The worldwide flood and the YD event are synonymous.
  • The worldwide flood ushered in a new geologic era, the Post-Diluvian.
  • Ice impact craters in NA and SA were created by IO fragments raining down during its Earth impact approach. [Fitting observations to theory (a.k.a. anti-science, or fantasy): the belief that the NA craters were caused by a phantom comet impact on some ice sheet.]
  • Ubiquitous, submerged river systems and associated canyons were carved by well-known subaerial processes. They became well-preserved in the bathymetry with the quick introduction of the IO’s melt waters. [Gravity (or turbidity) flows as their cause is yet another example of fitting observations to theory. Worse, the theory is erroneous.]
  • Materials recovered from IO-created deposit mounds and its central core nucleus would inform our understanding of the universe and its origin.
  • We humans are among surviving species. We find ourselves ill-adapted for the post-flood ecosystem that we encounter.
  • Surviving as a maladapted, sentient species necessitates environmental abuse.
  • Anthropology is fundamentally and adversely affected by geology’s erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm.
  • Humans are not out of Africa. The belief that we are is another fiction resulting from Sedgwick’s error.
  • Geology’s “no flood, ever” paradigm rests on a logical error. Its persistence and effects render it the most profound error in the history of science, for it adversely affects all of anthropology, most of geology, and matters concerning Earth and human history.

Yet science knows none of this, which is simply stunning in the context of all that we have accomplished in our post-flood survival endeavors and understandings.

Nonetheless, I believe that your recent publications could initiate a movement to correct geology and related fields.

The task then: how to break the news of such an error to the scientific community?


Michael Jaye, PhD