Recently published paper supporting the YD impact: The Younger Dryas interval at Wonderkrater (South Africa) in the context of a platinum anomaly

As the IO made its way toward impact (described here), its tail left ice impact craters dispersed over a wide region (most of it now under the waters it delivered). A recent paper, “The Younger Dryas interval at Wonderkrater (South Africa) in the context of a platinum anomaly,” reports on IO-borne materials found and analyzed by the authors.

Lemuria (Mu)

A few items regarding Lemuria (Mu):

  • In the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, COL Churchward visited ancient sites in the far East where he learned of Lemuria and its fate. He was also a painter, and his depictions of the flood’s inundation of Mu, done in 1920’s-1930’s, are amazing. Unfortunately, his work is discredited because of the prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm.
  • Churchward’s map of Mu is shown above my ArcGIS model of pre-flood Earth. Onto my map I added an approximate outline of Lemuria. (I believe that Churchward should have positioned the eastern extent of Mu along the western coasts of Central and South America. The southeastern “tail” of Mu’s extent in his image seems to be in keeping with the southeastward direction of South America’s northwestern coastline.)Churchward Lemuria map with ArcGIS map and approx outline from mapThe southern extent of my approximation to Lemuria is about 29 degrees south latitude, perhaps a bit too far south for pre-flood human habitation (due to colder temperatures).
  • The map, below, is a DNA “heat map” depicting by color the closeness of human ancestry (white = little similarity, red = close similarity). The correct explanation for the similarities: pre-flood Mu was a very closely knit civilization, and its flood survivors from its eastern and western extents carry with them their DNA link. (The absurd explanation, follows from “no flood, ever”:  humans made their way tens of thousands of miles northward – during an ice age!, crossed the Bearing Strait, then made their way tens of thousands of miles to South America – without leaving their DNA “signature.” [Map reference: Llamas, B., et. al. 2016. Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2 (4).])DNA heat map
  • A few of Churchward’s paintings on the destruction of Mu are shown below. Note in the last image that he shows ice chunks being transported by walls of water. That is precisely what happened – all of the IO’s waters did not melt immediately, and as they coursed around the planet, they carried with them large ice chunks. I would like to know where Churchward gained this information, as well as whether or not his sources survived to the present.Churchward The Destruction of MuChurchward The Asiatic Wave (Unaccompanied with Ice) Massive wallChurchward The American and European Wave with ice chunks
  • Several years ago, I wrote an essay for a site operated by one of COL Churchward’s descendants. That post is included, below.

Mu and the Worldwide Flood

Please see the numbered items, below. Item 1 is an email that I shared in 2015 with several prominent geologists regarding the worldwide flood; Item 2 features two of Churchward’s paintings that depict the destruction of Mu; Item 3 is an annotated Google Earth map of the Monterey Canyon region off the coast of California; and Item 4 discusses Sedgwick’s recantation of his belief in a biblical flood, the scientific method, and geologists’ failure to reject a false paradigm in the presence of new data.

Shortly after I moved to the Monterey, CA, area I came upon the relatively new Google Map (satellite view) data that reveal submerged, former river systems. Anyone but a geologist would know that this drainage system could only have been created by subaerial processes.  Yet geologists believe that they were, and such bad science must be corrected: geologists are fitting the creation of these structures into their ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm (discussed in Item 1).  Such explanations illustrate the practice of fitting observations to theory, which is anti-science. That is, turbidity flows as the structures’ creation mechanism represents an ad hoc speculation crafted to eliminate apparent conflict with the prevailing paradigm.  Not just that, but the explanations also exemplify the confusion of cause and effect – whatever turbidity flows that have been observed in/near these structures are post-submersion consequences and certainly not their creation mechanism.  To consider that these submerged drainage systems were carved by subsurface processes finds its historical equivalent in the idea that all celestial bodies orbit Earth.

To resolve matters I identify the cosmic impact that delivered the worldwide flood waters.  While forever changing the planet, the vast and newly introduced waters also buried Mu and Atlantis. Remnants from each of these civilizations will eventually be discovered far beneath the ocean’s surface in places that have thus far been beyond our consideration.

Although mentioned in Item 1, I wish to emphasize this important consequence:  we humans are ill-adapted for the post-flood ecosystem that we encounter.  The planet for which we are adapted no longer exists, and our survival necessitates exploiting and abusing Earth’s resources for warmth, shelter, and food. From an archaeological and anthropological perspective, humans did not occupy presently exposed landscapes (except in some locations at tropical latitudes) prior to the worldwide flood because, at more than two miles above the former sea level, the lands we occupy now would have been too cold.

For those interested, I gave this presentation, “Resolving the Problem of Atlantis,” to the Explorers Club in NYC in April 2016.

I hope that all this will help you and others to put into proper context COL James Churchward’s findings: Mu existed, and it was lost in the worldwide flood.

Michael Jaye, PhD

1. Recently sent email:

Dear Profs _________,

As you are probably aware, for nearly 200 years geologists have accepted that the Earth has had all its water since nearly its beginning. This paradigm finds its origin in the early decades of the 1800s when Buckland, Sedgwick, Conybeare, Lyell, etc., began the process of determining whether or not the whole of the Earth suffered a deluge.  It became apparent to all that diluvial gravels belonged to multiple, distinct events, and because there was not a common event in the record then there could not have been a worldwide flood (e.g. Sedgwick’s recantation, 1831).  But this conclusion and its ensuing paradigm precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes might have been inundated by some unknown event.  From the evidence the precise conclusion should have been: presently exposed landscapes were not inundated by a presumed worldwide flood.  This is wholly different from claiming that there was never a worldwide flood.  Yet “no global flood, ever” became the accepted paradigm that persists to this day, and it has far-reaching implications.

Relatively new data in the form of Google Earth and Google Maps (satellite view) expose the erroneous paradigm.  The map data reveal the remnants of a massive cosmic impact in what is now the Southern Ocean. (Location of impact is corroborated by this article.)  The impacting object had a dense, solid core that was surrounded by a fragile outer layer.  Assumed to have formed in the Oort Cloud, this outer layer would be consistent with known comet composition – predominantly ice – and upon melting it would deliver more than 3 km of water to former oceans and seas.  This impact created the YD nanodiamond layer and associated environmental effects placing the event 13kybp.  The flood waters submerged and preserved Monterey Canyon and similar drainage systems found throughout the planet.  Humans commemorate the event in ubiquitous oral traditions: there was a catastrophic, worldwide flood.

Here are three Google Maps views of the impact site.  It is in the Southern Ocean southeast of South Africa and nearly due south of Madagascar.  Center impact is vic 56.83S, 53.75E.

Impact site three views

These are identical perspectives of the impact site available to everyone with a computer and Google Earth.  The upper is the standard view with superimposed diameter measuring 2500 km; the middle is a bathymetry map depicting raised regions of deposits borne by the impacting object – the circle identifies the location of the nucleus remnants (RGB color scale corresponds to highest to lowest elevations); the lower view is a magnetic anomaly map (RGB scale corresponds with most to least intense susceptibilities).  Magnetic anomalies extend 1500 km to the northeast through the impact crescent’s gap – impact velocities and associated forces projected ice and other object-borne materials through the crescent gap.  We note that the maps constitute data that had not been available to geologists or other scientists until recently. In the Oort Cloud where this object formed, gravitational accelerations induced by the solid, inner core were less than 1% of Earth’s.  Aggregations forming the outer water-ice and debris shell made it more massive than the core, yet accelerations created by the combined system were on the order of 2% of Earth’s.  These small accelerations explain why the impacting object was so loosely packed, porous, and fragile, as well as why its impact effects on the Earth are so unimpressive and far less damaging than what might be expected from a similarly sized but solid object.

The object that struck in what is now the Southern Ocean created the nanodiamond layer, it caused the YD climate changes, and it flooded the planet by adding more than 3 km to former ocean depths.

The waters preserved in the bathymetry the many submerged river drainage systems that we can now “see” with Google Earth/Maps.  Here are some examples:

Submerged drainage examples from around planet 8Jan2018

To anyone but a trained geologist the noticeable, meandering features are submerged river drainage systems.

Yet one of the four is published by geologists as having drainages that were subaerially carved, and it is the one in the upper right (western Med) – Garcia-Castellanos (Nature, 2009) claimed that the Med flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar (their timing is way off, however).  We note that the former drainages in the Med end at a common depth because carving/erosion is a subaerial process that ceases upon contact with a terminal body of water. Like those in the Med, the drainages in the other three examples were also subaerially carved and seeking their terminal bodies of water.  They are preserved because they were quickly submerged by the flood waters.

Here is a schematic from the Nature paper that depicts the waters beginning to enter the Med.  Note the there was a body of water in the Med and that for millions of years the waters drained into it thereby carving the features that are now preserved in the bathymetry and which we can now “see” via Google Earth/Maps.

Western Med from paper

Submarine geomorphologists (and other geologists) conjecture that turbidity flows carved these submerged drainages because to them there was never a worldwide flood.  But it is an absolute, physical impossibility for any flow to remain focused and energetic at the depths and distances involved to carve these structures.  Geologists are fitting data to theory, and that is the practice of anti-science, or fantasy.  Also, ascribing the structures’ creation to subsurface flows is the confusion of cause and effect: whatever turbidity flows that have been observed near these structures are consequences of the structures, post submersion, and certainly not their creation mechanism.  To think that subsurface processes carved these features is equivalent to believing that all celestial bodies orbit the Earth.

COL James Churchward’s work (e.g. The Lost Continent of Mu) is discredited because of the “no flood, ever” paradigm.  Nonetheless, here is a map he created roughly 100 years ago based on his travels and research.  Note the location of Mu.

Lost Continent of Mu by Churchward

And here is a three-color, ArcGIS-produced map (model) of pre-flood Earth (blue = former seas; tan = formerly exposed landscapes; yellow = presently exposed landscapes) created by removing more than 3 km water from Earth’s surface:

Figure6 blog

Note the formerly exposed region to the west of South America, particularly its western extent, in the GIS-model, and compare it to Churchward’s Mu.

There’s more:  this recent finding  included a human DNA “heat map”:

DNA heat map

Explaining the heat map is obvious in the context of the worldwide flood:  peoples inhabiting Mu shared a common ancestry, and descendants of flood survivors in Australia and regional Pacific islands are DNA-linked to descendants of flood survivors in South America.  (By the way, the hypothesis that human migrations to the Americas via some land bridge near the Arctic Circle is wholly invalidated by this map.)

The research vessel Anton Bruun in October 1962 discovered what appear to be human artifacts in the deep abyss.  This is a photo and its corresponding caption from the voyage:

Cruise Report

From the voyage report:

“Columns under the Sea – or – unusual rock formations off Callao, Peruat a depth of 2000 meters some exceptionally interesting photographs were obtained.  The figure shows two columnar structures projecting from the sediments….  It is tempting to suggest that these represent evidence of submerged man-made structures.  The apparent “inscriptions” on the columns is suggestive as is also their upright condition.  The absence of typical submerged rock exposure is further suggestive that these photos have recorded more than just sedimentary rock exposure.  The possibility certainly exists, even if the probability is low, that these photographs do show evidence of submerged man-made structures….”

The columns are remnants of human activity from Churchward’s lost continent, Mu.

In addition, if you are familiar with Dillehay’s  Monte Verde, then you would know that he conclusively places humans in South America between 12,400 and 12,800 years before present.  Also, the Haida (noted seafarers) have been dated as far back as 13,000 years ago.  Each settlement’s time estimate corresponds with the YD nanodiamond layer creation and the associated climate effects that were caused by the cosmic impact in the Southern Ocean that delivered the worldwide flood.

Humans evolved in the former abyss where, in the absence of more than 3 km water, atmospheric pressures would have increased temperatures – it is why we are furless.  Correspondingly, our furry relatives evolved in landscapes that were more than 3 km above the former sea level – it was much, much cooler up here (prior to the flood), and we encounter them now because we survived into available landscapes.  Most important is this implication: we humans are not properly adapted for the post-flood Earth environment that we encounter.  Hence our problems….

It is only a matter of time until other evidence of human activity is discovered in the deep abyss.  At that time what will geologists do (other than try to discredit the findings)?

But the bottom line is this:  geologists are preventing us from achieving a correct understanding of Earth and human history, and the community of scientists needs to be made aware of geology’s nearly 200-year old, fundamental, paradigmatic “no flood, ever” error.  It will one day be recognized as the most profound error in the history of science.

2. Two of James Churchward’s paintings depicting the destruction of Mu are shown below. Note that a portion of the upper painting’s caption reads, “…Unaccompanied with Ice.” I find that caption to be fascinating. The celestial object that delivered the flood waters was composed mostly of ice, and not all of it would have melted immediately after impact. Because Mu was located relatively close to the impact site, it is very reasonable to consider that the meltwaters would have carried substantial amounts of ice with them as they coursed about. So how did Churchward know this? He was hamstrung by Geology’s “no flood, ever” paradigm (in fact, he postulated that the entire continent of Mu had subsided into the abyss), so he would not have considered that the waters had a frozen, cosmic source, and this piques our curiosity: what prompted him to mention ice? Where would he have found the account? Would it be available today?

It is worth noting that the lower image shows volcanic activity, another very likely and immediate consequence of the cosmic impact.

Destruction of Mu Water on gathering

The Destruction of Mu waves volcanoes buildings in collaps

3. The rapid introduction of such a vast amount of water preserved the Monterey Canyon drainage system.  The figure, below, depicts and annotates a Google Earth map of the region drained by the system, most of it far off shore (it is approximately 120 miles from the Monterey peninsula to the drainage terminus found in the lower left of the figure).  At more than 3 km above the former sea level, what is now California would have been continuously inundated by rains caused by winds uplifted by the nearly vertical and formerly exposed continental margin.  Eventually those rain waters would have been energized by the fall back down the shelf, and this led to the creation of Monterey Canyon; this process explains the many other well-preserved river drainage systems found submerged throughout the planet. (This includes the recently discovered Tamanrasett Riverthat is now covered in the Sahara Desert.  The Tamanrasset drained westward and down Africa’s continental shelf thereby creating Cap Timiris Canyon.)

The confluence region in the Monterey Canyon figure is ambiguous or smeared as a consequence of river borne sediments being deposited into rising ocean waters much like the formation of river deltas.  This accounts for the nature of a U.S. Geological Survey sample core drilled in this confluence region: it is primarily composed of terrigenous sand, and its secondary composition is terrigenous gravel deposits.  Other river-borne materials that were deposited into the rising ocean waters account for the region’s sediment-filled channels.

Monterey Califonia coastal region with arrow ids

4. The reverend Adam Sedgwick was the president of the Geological Society of London in the early part of the 19thcentury, and he took part in and presided over the debate regarding whether or not there was ever a worldwide flood. At its essence, the argument against the worldwide flood went like this: because there was no common event found in diluvial records, then there never could have been a worldwide flood. But this conclusion is incorrect; instead, it should have been: presently exposed landscapes were not inundated by a presumed worldwide flood. This is the only conclusion that could have been drawn from the evidence, and it is precise, correct, and completely different from what the geologists determined.

But the erroneous conclusion prevailed, and one might rightly argue that Sedgwick’s recantation played an important factor in propagating the error. Part of his recantation goes like this:

“…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’s recantation came at the end of his tenure as society president, and, because of his stature not only as the president but also as a preacher, the incorrect conclusion became a paradigm that persists to this day.

However, somewhat recent discoveries regarding the distribution of certain species of flora and fauna cannot be explained under the mistaken paradigm (see Part II of Cataclysm! by DS Allan and JB Delair). Then the map data reveal other facts and observations that also cannot be explained (at least not rationally). In addition, this new map data reveal the cosmic impact that could not have been known until recently. Coupled with our understanding of comet composition (e.g. NASA’s Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1), we can now couple historical accounts of a worldwide flood with its evidence.

Unfortunately, geologists refuse to recognize the new data and its implications. Imagine being an editor or reviewer at some prestigious journal, someone with a long and lettered history among his/her profession, and being confronted with evidence that overturns a foundational belief in his/her field…. They should know that the scientific method calls for discarding their theories given the introduction of data that render it incommensurate and obsolete. And the “no flood, ever” paradigm is obsolete. There was a worldwide flood, and its cosmic source added more than 3km water to the Earth ecosystem 13kybp.

It forever changed the planet.


Simultaneous Impacts Configured Earth’s Landforms and Instilled Its Obliquity

There are two major events in Earth history that geologists have wrong. The first is “no flood, ever” – an indisputable mistake committed nearly 200 years ago, and the primary subject of this website. The second major error is the subject of the present post, a recapitulation of a paper I submitted to Geomorphology several years ago. The editor actually sent the paper our for “expert” review, but they thought it too radical for publication. I held onto it nonetheless.

My plan was to have The Worldwide Flood gain acceptance by the scientific community and then present this material. However, I might not live that long.

So, here is a paper that corrects the other fundamental error in geology that has us believing that, somehow, subsurface flows mysteriously reach up thousands of miles to move solid bedrock through solid bedrock. Such thinking is the fake-science equivalent of the notion that subsurface flows somehow carve submerged river systems.

Here is the majority of my correspondence with editor at Geomorphology:

“This article identifies the energy source and the sequence of events that configured the tectonic plates, continents, ocean basins, and major mountain ranges, and it describes how the planet’s obliquity was instilled. The Simultaneous Impacts Hypothesis invalidates Continental Drift and therefore constitutes a significant advance toward forming a more correct understanding of Earth history.

To paraphrase R. Thomas Chamberlain’s critique of Alfred Wegener, “If we are to believe in Jaye’s hypothesis, then we must forget most of what has been learned in the past 60 years and start all over again.” This hypothesis won’t require a complete restart, for much that has been learned while trying to support continental drift will likely fit into the Simultaneous Impacts Theory. However, this explanation will excite world-wide interest, new inquiries, realignment of old findings, and the discarding of others, etc.”

And now for the paper:

Simultaneous impacts configured Earth’s landforms and instilled its obliquity

Keywords: simultaneous impacts; obliquity; tectonic plate creation and movement


The simultaneous impacts of two eastward moving, immensely energetic objects configured the Earth’s land masses and instilled its obliquity.  The Simultaneous Impacts Hypothesis refutes and replaces Continental Drift.


For most of the past half century geologists have been searching for the source of energy that could move the continents over great distances. Based on the information available for most of this period, the only logical place to search was and has been Earth’s interior – hence, Continental Drift. But new data provide sufficient evidence to nullify that hypothesis. Visual Analytics, the science of reasoning facilitated by interactive image processing interfaces, applied to Google Maps and Google Earth data, leads to a novel hypothesis that replaces presently accepted assumptions, presuppositions, and myths formed on inaccurate interpretations of previously incomplete information. This paper assumes that Google Earth and Google Maps data are accurate. That data is analyzed to conclude that a brief and energetic event configured the Earth’s continents, ocean basins, and major mountain ranges, and it instilled the planet’s obliquity. While retaining the accepted hypothesis that many of Earth’s large land forms were once connected, the Simultaneous Impact Hypothesis refutes and replaces Continental Drift.


The energy required to configure Earth’s landforms to their current positions was approximately 1029 Joules (two spherically shaped impacting objects with 320 km radius, 2800 kg/m3 density, and impact velocity of 15 km/s). This energy was delivered by the simultaneous impacts of two eastward-moving, massive objects whose remnants measure approximately 800 km in diameter. Impact remnants frame the northern and southern extents of South America forming the Caribbean and Scotia Seas, respectively. The origin and nature of the objects is unknown; however, the shallow impact angle that led to the creation of remnant troughs might indicate that the objects could have suffered decayed orbits. The forces imparted by the simultaneous impacts separated land masses and configured the continents, the ocean basins, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the major mountain ranges, and the tectonic plates as they are today. Land mass movements and collisions caused by the simultaneous impacts instilled the planet’s obliquity. The duration of this event was approximately 20 minutes, and it caused a mass extinction.

The objects’ shallow impact angles created troughs (rather than craters), and they are easily detected in Google Maps (satellite view) or Google Earth. Remnant troughs are identified in red ovals in Figure 1. The northern object (1N) initial strike location was in the equatorial region northeast of Australia and the southern object (1S) strike location was southeast of New Zealand.  Impact locations are identified by faded red circles in Figure 1.

Figure1 5Nov2018Figure 1. Red ovals identify the simultaneous impact remnant troughs.  Impact locations are identified by faded red circles.


The simultaneous impacts severed and propelled formerly conjoined India and Africa from their original locations. By event termination the movement of these land masses would create basins for the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. India, immediately to the east of the 1S impact, acquired the most kinetic energy. Due to the impacting objects’ initial directions, the more massive and slower moving African continent slid eastward and northward (Figure 2a). India’s velocity would eventually cause it to shear off of Africa; as it proceeded northward (Figure 2b), India collided with a land mass and dragged it from its original location (Figure 2c), creating what is now known as Malaysia. This collision induced a torque to the moving Indian landmass that sheared Madagascar off of Africa as well as India (Figure 2d). India’s momentum carried it northward and into the Asian sub-continent, creating the Himalayan range. Land mass transits formed terrestrial wakes, scrapes, and gouges that remain as evidence on the ocean floors; Ninetyeast Ridge is one such remnant. India’s path follows a great circle route on the sphere (Figure 3).

Figure2 10Nov2018Figure 2. Arrows indicate (a) Africa’s movement relative to South America; (b) India’s transit; (c) Malaysia’s creation by India’s impact and transit; (d) Madagascar is shorn from Africa and India due to torque induced by India’s impact with Malaysia.
Figure3 5Nov2018Figure 3. The arrow in this Google Earth image identifies India’s transit on the sphere as a great circle route.


The simultaneous impacts also compressed, severed, and then released what are now North America and South America from their original locations and then dragged them across the Pacific Ocean basin, which their movements created. Outlines of the continents’ western boundaries remain discernable in the bathymetry (Figure 4). Forces from the dual impacts deformed and compressed terrain topographies, creating both the Andes and Rocky Mountain ranges, before impact forces released the continents on their eastward transits. The compression lasted until impact forces overcame the continents’ static friction forces. The Andes are tightly formed along South America’s western coast due to land mass compression from both 1N and 1S. However, North America’s western mountains, valleys, and faults were formed by a more complex sequence of events due to the influence of only 1N.

Figure4 5Nov2018Figure 4. The simultaneous impacts severed and released what are now North America and South America from their original locations and dragged them across the Pacific basin.  Outlines of the continents’ pre-impacts positions are identified in the bathymetry by NA and SA on the left of this Google Maps image.  White arrows are of equal length to convey event simultaneity.

The Rocky Mountains were created by 1N initially tearing and compressing land from the western Pacific (white double arrows, Figure 5a). The landscape was compressed to a “release line,” now a series of volcanoes (Figure 5b), most of which are submerged; the northwest extent of the “release line” is in the Pacific Ocean near Kamchatka. 1N’s eastward movement eventually imparted sufficient force to overcome the continent’s static friction force; once released, the continent’s transit formed the northern Pacific Ocean basin. The latitude-like arc stretching from Kamchatka along the Aleutian Atoll to the Gulf of Alaska is a remnant of North America’s shearing at the onset of its release.

Figure2 11Nov2018Figure 5.  (a)  White double arrows indicate North America’s land mass compression region, forming the Rocky Mountains; (b) North America’s release line; (c) scours created by (d) drag locations (white circles) which unfurled compressed landscapes during continental transit, creating valleys, gulfs, and faults along the western coast; prior to the simultaneous impacts, the red circled regions along the western Pacific boundary were connected to the white circled drag locations found along the west coast of North America.  The Mexican Peninsula is particularly disfigured by North America’s transit; faults and consequent earthquakes persist due to landmass deformation; (e) black double arrows indicate the region unfurled by westward-acting drag forces during North America’s transit.

Valleys, gulfs, and faults along the west coast of North America were created by drag mechanisms which unfurled compressed landscapes during transit. These drag locations (Figure 5d) created a set of four essentially parallel west-to-east remnant scrapes in the Pacific Ocean floor (Figure 5c). The Rocky Mountain chain was partially unfurled by the westward acting forces from these drag mechanisms (black double arrows, Figure 5e), creating California’s Central Valley as well as the Gulf of California. The westward acting drag forces on the eastward moving continent weakened the compressed landscapes resulting in the faults found along North America’s west coast. Because of the drag locations, the west coast of North America halted while 1N continued eastward. This created southeasterly terrain elongations that formed the Baja Peninsula and produced the region’s faults that remain active to the present. It should be noted that the drag locations found along the western coast of North America correspond to their readily identifiable original locations now in the bathymetry of the western Pacific Ocean. Their locations are identified by red circles in Figure 5.


India’s impact into the Asian sub-continent or Africa’s halt, or both, induced the planet’s obliquity. Evidence remains in the impact troughs, each of which has a southern turn (or rightward turn relative to the objects’ travel direction): as the two impacting objects traveled straight in their reference frames, India’s collision and/or Africa’s halt caused the planet beneath them to tilt northward; as the objects continued to plow eastward their remnant troughs consequently bend southward, shown in Figure 6.

Figure6 5Nov2018
Figure 6.  The white lines are superimposed over the impacting objects’ transit remnants.  The paths curve southward because the objects traveled straight in their reference frame while the planet beneath them tilted northward.  The northward tilt was induced by the halt in Africa’s transit, or when India collided into the Asian subcontinent, or both.


The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, erroneously thought to be a mechanism causing continental separation, forms as a consequence of continental transits coming to a halt: the ridge and its deformations buckled as North and South American eastward transits ceased. Hence the ridge nearly uniformly bisects the Americas to the west and Europe and Africa to the east.

Volcanic fissures that eventually would lead to the formation of the Hawaiian Island system were created by movement of one of the drag locations. Evidence in the form of scrapes in the Pacific basin can be traced to major volcanoes in the Hawaiian Island chain, shown in Figure 7. Assuming that the deepest or largest fissure would be created nearest to 1N, then fissure dormancy time would be expected to increase as a function of distance northward. Thus we find Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea presently active, whereas dormant islands (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Oahu) extend to the northwest in the island chain. The Hawaiian Islands are not migrating over some hypothesized hot spot.

Figure7 5Nov2018
Figure 7. Scrapes left by drag mechanisms correspond to volcanoes in the Hawaiian Islands.

The dual impacts and their immediate effects took place over a span of time measured in minutes. The mass extinction caused by the impacts places the event at least 65 million years before present. Boundaries and tectonic plates created during the event remain seismically active as the planet continues to recover.

In addition to instilling the planet’s obliquity, the simultaneous impacts imparted sufficient energy to affect the rotation of the planet, resulting in the current “day”.  The planet’s increased rotational velocity and its newly induced tilt are likely to have created conditions resulting in the planet’s chaotic magnetosphere. Asymmetries in impact sizes, locations, and effects could be the source of Milankovitch cycles. Prior to the simultaneous impacts, the Earth’s axis would have been perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, and warmer climates are likely to have extended closer to its poles. Finally, materials ejected by the massive and energetic collisions are likely to have escaped Earth’s gravitational pull and eventually cratered its moon.


The simultaneous impact of two massive and energetic objects configured the continents by moving them to their present locations, creating the Earth’s ocean basins as well as its major mountain ranges and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Landmass movements and collisions induced by the simultaneous impacts instilled the planet’s obliquity. The movements also created the planet’s tectonic plates as well as their boundaries that remain seismically active to the present. All this took place on a time scale measured in minutes. The impacts and their effects caused a mass extinction, placing the simultaneous impacts at least 65 million years before present. The Simultaneous Impacts Hypothesis refutes Continental Drift, and the many works based upon that assumption are therefore invalid.


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 paths

Next 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 17Aug2018

In 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 17Aug2018

To 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 craters

In 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.

Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth

For almost 200 years geologists have accepted that the Earth has had all its water since nearly its beginning. This paradigm finds its origin in the early decades of the 1800s when European geologists began the process of determining whether or not the whole of the Earth suffered a deluge. The early geologists set about various landscapes seeking a common deposit layer, but they could not find it. Instead, it became apparent that diluvial gravels belonged to multiple, distinct events. Therefore, because there was not a common event in the observational record, the early geologists concluded that there was never a worldwide flood.

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, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.)

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.

Interestingly, today’s lettered geologists staffing the science’s premier journals do not know the source of their fundamental “no flood, ever” tenet. They simply accept it as an article of their faith, and they immediately discount anyone thinking otherwise. I know this because I have dealt with them. Many of them. I have found that the very few aware of the history are wholly uncritical of the conclusion relative to its supporting evidence.

Uncritical? Indeed: the early geologists’ “no flood, ever” conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick and his peers 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 and the other early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that they could not observe; they assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning. The error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were inundated by some event, something that Google Maps data strongly imply (examples shown on Figure 1).

Four drainagesFigure 1. Submerged drainages now discernible in Google Earth include (clockwise from upper left): coastal California, the Gulf of Alaska, the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, and the Celtic Sea to the southwest of Ireland.

Geology’s incorrect finding has persisted for two reasons: (1) there was little contradictory evidence on presently exposed landscapes that would call into question the prevailing theory, and (2) we could not see into the bathymetry to observe submerged landscapes until only recently. Today, however, the new maps allow us to observe the topography of ocean floors where we find former rivers. The new maps unequivocally reveal well-preserved drainages under more than three kilometers (km) of water, and they are ubiquitous. Their existence implies that there must have been a worldwide flood.

Please note that we are applying the scientific method: new data (maps) caused us to review theory. And what we find immediately is that geology’s ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm is erroneous. The new data should evoke new thinking, which in our case would result in the restoration of the belief that the Earth suffered a devastating flood. That geologists have failed to review their fundamental belief in the presence of this new data is powerful testament to the constraining effect that ‘no flood, ever’ holds over science, related disciplines, and rational thought.

The drainages in Fig. 1 imply that the Earth had much less water than the present. As such, it is interesting to consider pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown on Figure 2. It was created in ArcGIS by removing an estimated average depth of 3 km from the present sea level, thereby exposing the former river systems.

Fig7 Preflood Earth v2Figure 2. 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).

With the removal of so much water, the atmosphere would have covered the former abyss. Thus, the dark tan areas on Fig. 2 experienced increased atmospheric pressure, which would have led to higher temperatures. Humans evolved in these regions, and we are furless as a consequence. We find evidence of pre-flood human activity nearly exclusively in tropical latitudes because, at more than 3 kilometers (two miles) above the former sea level, most of the yellow regions on Fig. 2 were too cold for human habitation. In the context that there was a worldwide flood, humanity’s relationship with its planet might be better understood this way: our environmental abuse is a consequence of a maladapted, sentient species endeavoring to survive. We would be extinct were it not for our brains.

What is now coastal California would have been more than 3 km above the former sea level, and winds uplifted by the nearly vertical continental shelf condensed to create persistent rainfall that eroded and rounded the hills. The Salinas Valley was once an inland lake, and it drained to the northwest and then down the nearly vertical slope where its waters acquired sufficient kinetic energy to carve what we now call Monterey Canyon (upper left, Fig. 1).

We will leave for another day the identification of the water’s source, though we can state with certainty that it must be cosmic, for such a volume could not be stored at the poles. Until then, let us all recognize that geology’s “no flood, ever” tenet is an immense mistake: two branches of science, geology and anthropology, are fundamentally incorrect. This renders Google Earth as the historic equivalent to Galileo’s telescope – each ‘device’ revealed data that led to overturning incorrect scientific paradigms.

The task remains: how do we get geologists to recognize their error?  Should we treat them with derision? Do we mock them for adhering to an incorrect tenet as if it were religious dogma? I am not sure, but this much is certain – they must recognize their error. They must be asked: Why do you believe there was never a flood? and Do you not recognize the logical error committed by your predecessors?  We must make them reform. We must carry out the task of correcting the most profound error in the history of science.

PS – I submitted this essay in Nov 2017 to the National Association of Scholars who declined to publish it because it “did not fit within our current editorial plans for Academic Questions.”