Articles and their descriptions

Greetings.

The primary intent of this website is to chronicle my findings regarding the worldwide flood, as well as my dealings with geologists. To that effect, here are some items:

– My peer-reviewed paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary”. It will take some time to undo geology’s historic mess, but doing so has its ‘official start’ with this publication. It has been cited in two recent papers, Disaster Geoarchaeology and Natural Cataclysms in World Cultural Evolution: An Overview and Reemergence of Atlantis: The Shifting Paradigm and Creation of Neo-spatial Models

Figure6 blog

Letter to the editor of a National Academy of Sciences article in which I request the retraction of the PNAS article, “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My.” Sadly, the National Academy of Sciences is staffed by geologists who cannot differentiate “presently exposed landscapes were never flooded” from “no worldwide flood, ever,” so they declined to publish my letter. Nonetheless, my letter is concise and completely correct, as the discovery of wood chips in oxbows now submerged beneath two miles of water is unambiguous evidence of the worldwide flood. We note, in particular, that the article’s authors, as well as its PNAS editor(s), did not include a map of the region from which the wood chips were discovered. One can only wonder, why? A discussion of the evidence that supports my letter is found here.

Submerged and aerial Ganges meanders and oxbows

– Research article, “The explanation for impact craters discovered by MBARI off the coast of Central California,” shows that a recently discovered impact swarm on the ocean floor – now beneath two miles of water! – was created subaerially then submerged very soon thereafter by waters delivered by the object whose fragments created the swarm. The Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Institute (MBARI) recently published, “Researchers discover mysterious holes in the seafloor off Central California,” available here. It is briefly summarized with this snippet: “The cause and persistence of the pockmarks still remains a mystery, but we find no evidence they were created from gas or fluid in the seafloor in the recent past. The micro-depressions are recently formed erosional features; they are not ‘incipient pockmarks.’ Overall, a lot more work needs to be done to understand how all these features were formed, and this work is in progress….” Close. The marks are not erosional, their cause is not a mystery, nor is there a need for much more work, for the explanation for the pockmarks is found in my paper. That is, the MBARI discovery represents important, corroborating evidence in support of the worldwide flood. As such, I have written to the MBARI researchers, its primary staff, as well as members of the Comet Research Group to inform them of the swarm’s cause, and to link them together so that they might take the lead in countering geology’s historic “no worldwide flood, ever” error.

MBARI impact locations off CA coast 27Dec2019

– Essay: Debunking Geology’s ‘No Flood, Ever’ Theory: Historical Analysis & Bathymetry Evidence on New Maps

Le deluge de Noe et les compagnons by Comerre 1911 public domain

– Essay: ‘No worldwide flood, ever’ = the most profound error in the history of science, was to appear at a certain website in Feb 2020, but interaction with the site’s editor led me to believe that the essay was not appropriate for the audience (too much science).

– Research article: “Younger-Drays impacts: data and analysis,” deals with YD impact craters in North America, South America, and South Africa. It encapsulates the contents of a message sent to members of the Comet Research Group, as well as authors of a recent paper that analyses a South African YD impact.

– Research article: Insight into human migrations based on DNA heat maps, uses recently published maps of DNA similarities to show that the Mediterranean Basin, the last major region to be inundated by the worldwide flood, provided sufficient warning to its inhabitants to allow some to survive upward.

– Essay: Lemuria (Mu) I combine my findings with those of COL James Churchward and his paintings of Lemuria’s destruction in the worldwide flood.

Churchward The American and European Wave with ice chunks

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

EssayEyewitness 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.

Split with overlain paths

– My book is another source. I wrote and self-published it immediately after retiring. In it, I uncover and correct geology’s “no worldwide flood, ever” error. It is self-published because of the incredible prejudice brought against anyone thinking against the current paradigm. Among the consequences: two major branches of science, geology and anthropology, require fundamental reformations.

Research article,Simultaneous Impacts Configured Earth’s Landforms and Instilled Its Obliquity.” I employ new bathymetry maps to correct the means by which the continents obtained their current configuration. Continental drift is nearly as big an error as “no flood, ever.” I submitted the paper to the journal Geomorphology where it was sent out for review. Unfortunately, the reviewers felt it too radical for their journal. So we continue to believe that swirling currents in the center of the planet mysteriously reach up to move the continents. What garbage! The continents are not drifting; rather, their movements represent recovery from the simultaneous impact event (~65 million years ago!). This article has nothing to do with the worldwide flood, but it is enlightening to consider this event as an equally critical part of our planet’s history.

Creating the current day

Public Lecture – I presented “Resolving the Problem of Atlantis” to the Explorers Club in NYC in 2016, and the talk is available here.

TV Interview – Working under the theory that any publicity is good publicity, I agreed to appear on George Noory’s show, Beyond Belief in October 2018. The interview is titled, “The Worldwide Flood,” and it is available here.

Radio Interviews – I appeared as the guest on radio programs. The interviews can be accessed at the following links:

 

Regards,

Michael Jaye, PhD

Author Photo Jaye

 

Chinese New Year Dragon w water coming from mouth

‘No worldwide flood, ever’ = the most profound error in the history of science

Note: The following essay was to appear at a certain website in mid-Feb 2020. However, interactions with the site’s editor led me to conclude that its content was not appropriate for their audience…. Portions of this essay appear in other posts, and for that I apologize; however, there is a sufficient amount of new material, which prompts me to post it. Enjoy!

All modern science and associated disciplines accept geology’s paradigm that there was never a worldwide flood. The tenet’s history is easily summarized: In the early decades of the 1800s, geologists set about Europe searching for evidence of the worldwide flood. Leading the effort was Adam Sedgwick, Cambridge University Professor, President of the Geological Society of London, and a reverend in the Church of England. Sedgwick and his colleagues sought an expected, common layer of materials deposited by the supposed flood waters, but they could not find it. Thus, they concluded that there was never a worldwide flood. In his 1831 president’s address to his society, Sedgwick stated:

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.

It was a celebrated event, and it remains fêted as the triumph of science over religion (a misnomer, as it more correctly should be known as the triumph of science over the human narrative tradition). An example of its celebration is found in Stephen Gould’s The Flamingo’s Smile, Reflections in Natural History:

He [Sedgwick] had led the fight for flood theory; but he knew by then [1831] that he had been wrong. He also recognized that he had argued poorly at a critical point: he had correlated the caves and gravels not by empirical evidence, but by a prior scriptural belief in the Flood’s reality. As empirical evidence disproved his theory, he realized this logical weakness and submitted himself to rigorous self-criticism. I know no finer statement in all the annals of science than Sedgwick’s forthright recantation . . . it illustrated so well the difference between dogmatism, which cannot change, and true science. . . .

Sedgwick’s ‘no flood’ legacy is so pervasive that Graham Hancock notes in Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, “The academic consensus today, and for a century, has been that the (flood) myths are either pure fantasy or the fantastic elaboration of local and limited deluges – caused for example by rivers overflowing, or tidal waves.” He also observes that thinking contrary to ‘no flood’ would be “a risky posture for any modern scholar to adopt, inviting ridicule and rebuke from colleagues.” Risky, indeed, because Sedgwick’s ‘no flood, ever’ finding has become so entrenched that, arguably, it is geology’s principal dogma.

As Gould notes, Sedgwick accomplished ‘true science’ because he applied the scientific method: he made observations that contradicted the prevailing paradigm, and, as a consequence, the paradigm (that there had been a worldwide flood) was discarded.

At this point, we should note that Sedgwick did not investigate the morphology of vast, submerged landscapes. Neither he nor anyone else could observe them until only recently.

New data lead to exposing the error in the ‘no worldwide flood, ever’ paradigm

Over the past decade, detailed maps of both subaerial and submerged landscapes became readily available. Now, anyone with access to the internet can observe features such as those off the Monterey and Big Sur coastlines in California, shown below. The maps reveal submerged river drainage systems (identified by white arrows) that extend hundreds of miles from the present shoreline into vast abyssal landscapes beneath more than two miles of water. Maps such as this represent new data.

Figure 6a Monterey Canyon

If you have been in a modern swimming pool, then it’s possible that you’ve investigated the subsurface jets that project filtered water into the pool at fairly high velocity. In addition, you might have noticed that these circulation streams cannot be felt merely a few feet away. Furthermore, these jets do not create currents that might affect swimmers’ performances. This is because concentrated water flows do not persist in essentially stagnant bodies of water due to the equal density of the flow and its media; water flows subaerially because it is vastly denser than its media, air (granted, there are slow-moving Earth-scale currents, but they could in no way create or affect local-scale, subsurface geologic morphology).

In spite of the new data and what we know about fluid dynamics, the modern, ‘no flood, ever’ geologist wants us to believe that submerged, gravity-induced turbidity flows carved the winding, submerged former-river systems that, in many cases, persist for hundreds of miles off present shorelines. They want us to believe that straight-moving, high-velocity, subsurface flows carved the oxbows and bends in these features. And they want us to believe that these gravitational flows act in the abyssal plains where, in the absence of steep topographic gradients, such flows could not exist.

Asides: (1) In the abyssal plain, any gravitational flows that might be associated with these submerged features would flow down the banks and cut into the prominent channels. That is, the gravitational flows would be perpendicular to the channel beds. (2) The remnant of a massive, wide, straight turbidity flow exists on the large oxbow (Sheppard Meander), just above and left of the map’s center. It bears no similarity to the myriad winding, subaerial rivers on the map.

The historic error

Clearly, something is wrong. We know that subsurface processes could not have carved the now-submerged river systems that are found all over the planet, most in more than two miles of water. In addition, the systems are very well preserved, which indicates that they were quickly submerged.

Contributing to the dilemma: today’s lettered geologists staffing the science’s premier journals do not know about Sedgwick and the work that led to their field’s historic and pervasive ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm. As with any dogma, they simply accept it as an article of their faith. They follow ‘no worldwide flood, ever’ so unthinkingly that they go so far as to try and fit the observations (submerged river systems) to the prevailing theory (no flood) via ad hoc hypotheses such as turbidity or gravity flows. This is the practice of anti-science, or fantasy.

I am not a lettered geologist, but I am a scientist, and so I have engaged them – many of them – over the past decade. I have found that the few that are aware of the history are wholly uncritical of Sedgwick’s conclusion relative to its supporting evidence. Uncritical? Indeed. It turns out that the celebrated, pervasive ‘no flood, ever’ finding is the source of the cognitive dissonances we have noted, as well as all amnesia regarding our past and our planet’s, for the early geologist’s conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick should have concluded that presently exposed landscapes were never subjected to a common flood event. This is undeniably true yet wholly different from the tenet holding that there was never a worldwide flood. Unfortunately for us and for all of modern science, the early geologists 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. It was an historic blunder, unequivocally the most profound error in the history of science.

Correcting the error

Geology’s incorrect finding persisted for two reasons: (1) There was little contradictory evidence on presently exposed landscapes that would call into question the prevailing theory. (2) We could not see into the bathymetry to observe submerged landscapes until the new maps became available. Now, the new data clearly reveal well-preserved river drainages under more than two miles of water, and they are ubiquitous. Their existence indicates that there must have been a worldwide flood.

Note that we are applying the scientific method: new data (maps) caused us to review theory, and that led us to discover the error in geology’s ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm. The new data should evoke new thinking, which in our case would result in the restoration of the belief that Earth suffered a devastating, worldwide 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 worldwide flood, ever’ holds over science, related disciplines, and rational thought.

Uncovering geology’s historic error makes the bathymetry maps the historical equivalent of Galileo’s telescope: The new instrument allowed Galileo to observe that the moons of Jupiter do not orbit Earth, which put an end to geocentrism; similarly, the submerged rivers in the new maps expose the error in geology’s ‘no worldwide flood, ever’ theory.

A major question remains: what was the source of so much water? I answer it in my recently published paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary.” Its major findings include: (1) identification of Sedgwick’s historic and far-reaching error; (2) identification and analysis of the Younger-Dryas impact that delivered the worldwide flood waters (i.e. the YD event and the worldwide flood are synonymous); (3) recognition that the Mediterranean Sea flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar ~12,800 years before present. Please read it and share it.

Understanding two popular legends

My paper contains this passage (wherein ‘IO’ refers to ‘impacting object’):

“We note that the west-to-east flooding of the Mediterranean basin through the Strait of Gibraltar occurred after the IO impact and subsequent inundation of the planet’s ocean basins. As a consequence, during the period immediately after the IO’s impact yet before the flood waters reached the Strait, human inhabitants of the former Med basin would have noticed dramatic environmental changes that included rains, prolonged cold, and earthquakes.”

Very recently, someone who had read my paper contacted me about the passage because it obliquely alludes to the legend of Noah and the flood: the reported forty days and nights of rain represent the period of time from immediately after the IO’s impact until its waters began flowing through the Strait. During this period, monumental changes to the planet were taking place, including persistent rains. If Noah and his ark actually existed, then it is likely that his craft operated in the pre-flood sea that existed in the western half of what is now the Mediterranean Basin (see Fig. 6 in my paper). His craft is reported to have landed on Ararat, so candidate locations are the subaerial landforms either in or surrounding the Mediterranean Basin. It is likely that Ararat might have been the name of a pre-flood mountain that was sufficiently tall so as to become a post-flood Mediterranean island; certainly, Noah’s Ararat is not a mountain in Turkey. The animals that Noah encountered, post-Deluge, would be those that existed for tens of millions of years in formerly upland, pre-flood domains. Today, we encounter a subset of those species that initially survived the flood; as the post-Diluvian ecosystem came to be, some of the initially surviving species would become extinct because they could neither adapt nor migrate to suitable landscapes (e.g. wooly mammoth).

Humans are among the surviving species, and, perhaps surprisingly, this brings us to the story of Adam and Eve. Like Noah and the ark, the legend of Adam and Eve is another flood-survivor story. Pre-flood humans, represented by the pair, were naked (better said: furless) because they were adapted to the pre-flood, warmer ecosystem, a.k.a. Eden. The post-flood Earth is much cooler, so, like the surviving pair, we require clothing as an adaptation mechanism. The serpent, Satan, is among the many names by which the IO was known. As detailed in my paper, the IO was not a comet but rather the source object from which comets fragment. So, imagine the immense IO’s tail on its Earth-approach…. It would have been brightly illuminated, incredibly long and, well, serpentine. Thus, we can conclude that the snake is an allegory for the IO, and its effects were so planet-altering that humans found themselves ill-adapted; we must now work, compete, cooperate, and abuse resources in order to create survivable habitats. That is, Satan, the IO, changed our nature. Thirteen-thousand years later, we continue our quest for environments in which we might be properly adapted – our Eden’s, perhaps exemplified by the modern home that provides shelter, warmth, and stored food.

The Deluge towards its close Shaw 1813 public domainThe Deluge towards its close by Joshua Shaw, 1813 (public domain)

Academic Battles

Not long after my paper’s publication, I asked the journal’s editor how long he thought it might take for it to become accepted. His reply: “About five years.” So, four to go….

About which, a few days ago, I discovered that my paper has been cited in two recent works: Disaster Geoarchaeology and Natural Cataclysms in World Cultural Evolution: An Overview and Reemergence of Atlantis: The Shifting Paradigm and Creation of Neo-spatial ModelsEach appears in what academics would classify as a “serious journal.”

Interestingly, since the publication of these papers, I have noticed a greater number of ‘hits’ at this site, and from a wide variety of nations. This indicates to me that the papers are having effect – others are becoming aware of the most profound error in the history of science.

Yet, because there are about four years to go, I continue the academic battle against the authors and editors of the bad ‘science’ that geologists perpetuate. For instance, a recent paper published by PNAS is called “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My.” PNAS describes the article’s significance this way: “This study shows that woody debris can survive thousands of kilometers of transport in rivers and in turbidites, to be deposited in the fan.”

The location of the drill site from which the wood was extracted is shown on the map, below left. It is a region roughly 30 km by 50 km, centered at 7.91°N, 85.854°E, about 1600 km (1000 miles) to the south of the Bengal Fan, with water depths ~3700 m (more than two miles). To its right is a map of a 30 km by 50 km portion of the Ganges drainage (rotated 90° clockwise from north for comparison).

Submerged and aerial Ganges meanders and oxbows

It is important to note that the authors and editor chose not to include in their article a map of the drill region. (Why could that be?) Also omitted from the PNAS article is the process by which oxbows and meanders might form beneath two miles of water. That is because such a process does not exist. Furthermore, the article’s authors want us to believe that subsurface flows carried the tree fragment-covering sediments a thousand miles – and in sufficient quantities – so as to preserve the wood. Sediment transporting flows do not exist over such vast distances…. (Also, what caused the wood to sink through two miles of water, and in exactly the same place?) Clearly, the reported PNAS findings are but another example of geologists attempting to fit observations to their ‘no flood, ever’ dogma – more fantasy masquerading as science.

So, I wrote to the paper’s corresponding author and to its editor to inform them of their error. My intent was to have them either retract the submission or modify it to claim that its findings support the occurrence of a worldwide flood. Unsurprisingly, neither recipient recognized my correspondence, another instance of dealing with geologists….

Failing to move the article’s authors and its editor, I then submitted a letter to the editors at the National Academy of Sciences concerning the paper. The title of the letter was “Uncovering an historic error,” and, after submission, it was with the editors for about 24 hours…. With so little diligence to such an historic matter, the PNAS editor informed me that they would not publish my letter. I was given neither comment nor reason for the denial.

Regardless of the rationale, their decision is further indication that “no flood, ever” is as deeply entrenched as it is incorrect…. Folks, this is the National Academy of Sciences failing to recognize Sedgwick’s error!

So, for the historical record, here is my letter to the editors of PNAS. Its length could be no more than 500 words, which accounts for its brevity.

The reported significance of “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My” is that “woody debris can survive thousands of kilometers of transport in rivers and in turbidites, to be deposited in the fan.”

The immediate problem: the drill site from which the article’s cores were obtained is not in the Ganges deposit fan. That is, there is no known mechanism by which turbidites, let alone sufficient quantities of covering, preserving, sandy sediments, could be transported more than 1600 kilometers through the essentially stagnant water from the Ganges’ entry into the Bay of Bengal to the drill location.

The drill region from which the paper’s sandy cores were obtained is shown on the map, below, left. To its right is a map of a portion of the Ganges drainage (rotated 90° clockwise from north for comparison). Each displayed region measures roughly 30 km by 50 km and is viewed from a height of approximately 90 km.

Submerged and aerial Ganges meanders and oxbows

Had ancient wood chips been discovered in one of the subaerial oxbows, then it would be explained this way: the trees were carried downstream, deposited, covered, then preserved in the river’s sediments.

Accordingly, the essential question becomes: how do we come to find oxbows in 3700 m of water?

Pursuing it leads to an historic matter: Adam Sedgwick’s “no worldwide flood, ever” conclusion that affects all modern science. It turns out that Sedgwick erred: from the evidence, he should have concluded that subaerial landscapes were never subjected to a common flood. Instead, he concluded that there was never a worldwide flood, thereby passing judgment on the morphology of vast, submerged landscapes that he could not observe. No one could observe them until the publication of detailed bathymetry maps about a decade ago.

Therefore, the discovery of preserved tree chips in abyssal Bay of Bengal oxbows is not evidence of some ad hoc sediment transmission process conjured to fit observations to the prevailing, incorrect “no worldwide flood, ever” paradigm. Rather, the discovery of preserved wood chips obtained from oxbows submerged beneath 3700 m of water represents unambiguous evidence of the worldwide flood.

Thus, the Lee et. al. paper must be retracted. Its authors should be counseled to consider re-submitting with the purpose of correcting Sedgwick’s historic error.

A final note on the matter: the pre-flood river carried and deposited the tree fragments, then its sediments covered and preserved them. This simple, well-understood process, followed by submersion during the worldwide flood, accounts for the discovery of millions-year old tree remnants in oxbow- and meander-sediment layers thousands of miles off the present shoreline at such a depth.

The way ahead

I am confident that, over the next four years (or so), my paper will continue to be cited in other works. Young academics will recognize the nearly unbounded publishing opportunities presented by correcting two-hundred years of misguided science amassed in geology and affected disciplines. In particular, map evidence will put an end to geologists’ claim that subsurface flows carved the many submerged riverbeds, transported sediments 1000 miles, etc. In addition, some journalist or entrepreneurial filmmaker will capitalize on the opportunities that my work presents. It is also likely that some deep-sea explorer will encounter remnants of human activity in the deep abyss, and this will forever put an end to ‘no worldwide flood.’

 

References

Gould, S. 1985. The Flamingo’s Smile, Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.

Hancock, G. 2002. Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization. New York: Crown Publishers.

Jaye, M. 2019. The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 19(1): 71-83.

Lee, H., V. Galy, X. Feng, C. Ponton, A. Galy, C. France-Lanord, S.J. Feakins. 2019. Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(45): 22518-2225.

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

The explanation for impact craters discovered by MBARI off the coast of Central California

On 9 Dec 2019, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Institute, MBARI, published research findings in an article titled, “Researchers discover mysterious holes in the seafloor off Central California.” It is available here. The findings are summarized this way: “The pockmarks and micro-depressions in this area are both holes in the seafloor that occur in softer sediments, but they are morphologically distinct. The cause and persistence of the pockmarks still remains a mystery, but we find no evidence they were created from gas or fluid in the seafloor in the recent past. The micro-depressions are recently formed erosional features; they are not ‘incipient pockmarks.’ Overall, a lot more work needs to be done to understand how all these features were formed, and this work is in progress.”

Close. The marks are not erosional, their cause is not a mystery, nor is there a need for much more work, for the explanation for the pockmarks is found in my paper: the MBARI discovery represents important, corroborating evidence in support of my findings.

The MBARI map of the impact locations is shown, below. Note the NW-SE orientation of the impact field.

MBARI impact locations off CA coast 27Dec2019

Next is a Google Earth image depicting an impact swarm found in southern Argentina. We note that this field is similar to the swarm in the MBARI report: each is dense with minor impacts, and each field shows the same general orientation, NW-SE.

Argentina impact swarm 27Dec2019

MBARI also shows computer-generated images of some of the craters:

MBARI depression computer rendition 27Dec2019MBARI pockmarks depressions callouts 640x327 27Dec2019

For comparison, here is a close up from an Argentinian impact field:

Argentina impact similarity w MBARI craters

Note the circular pockmarks like those in the MBARI article.

Thus, we note the similarity not only in the field size and general direction, but also in the impacts’ variety, size, and number. The variety in crater shape and size is due to whether the crater-creating source object was ice or mineral.

The MBARI and the Argentinian impact craters were created by the disintegration of comet-like chunks that fell from the IO (impacting object) on its pre-impact flight path, approximated below. We note that the 1500-mile diameter IO was at a much higher altitude when over North America than it was when over Argentina, and this accounts for the western deviation from the white back-propagation line that approximates the IO’s central core path.

Picture1

Soon after impact, the craters off the CA coast would become preserved by the worldwide flood waters that the IO delivered.

Thus, the MBARI impact craters corroborate that there was a worldwide flood. As such, it is an historic finding, and so I contacted the MBARI researchers with an email similar to this post. My hope is that they will give it the attention that it deserves. However, it is quite difficult for the modern geologist to accept that there was once a worldwide flood (most do not know the history of the belief), so I have little hope that my missive will have effect.

[Not stated in this essay nor in the MBARI article is the somewhat obvious fact: the two-mile depth of ocean water would not permit object penetration to create such craters (hence, MBARI’s mystery).]

 

National Academy of Sciences Letter to the Editor regarding “Sustained wood burial…”

I wrote and submitted a letter to the editors at the National Academy of Sciences concerning a paper they recently published in PNAS titled, “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My.” The title of the letter was “Uncovering an historic error,” and, after submission, it was with the editors for about 24 hours…. With so little diligence to such an historic matter, the PNAS editor informed me that they declined to publish it. They gave neither comment nor reason.

Regardless of the rationale, their decision is further indication that “no flood, ever” is as deeply entrenched as it is incorrect…. Folks, this is the National Academy of Sciences failing to recognize Sedgwick’s error! Interestingly, the authors and editor(s) chose not to include in their article the map of the drill region, which I included in my letter. Why could that be?

So, for the historical record, here is the letter in its entirety. Its length could be no more than 500 words, which accounts for the brevity. But the message is completely correct and, therefore, appropriate:

Uncovering an historic error

The reported significance of “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My” is that “woody debris can survive thousands of kilometers of transport in rivers and in turbidites, to be deposited in the fan.”(1)

The immediate problem: the drill site from which the article’s cores were obtained is not in the Ganges deposit fan. That is, there is no known mechanism by which turbidites, let alone sufficient quantities of covering, preserving, sandy sediments, could be transported more than 1600 kilometers through the essentially stagnant water from the Ganges’ entry into the Bay of Bengal to the drill location.

The drill region from which the paper’s sandy cores were obtained is shown on the map, below, left. To its right is a map of a portion of the Ganges drainage (rotated 90o clockwise from north for comparison). Each displayed region measures roughly 30 km by 50 km and is viewed from a height of approximately 90 km.(2)

Ganges drill region

Had ancient wood chips been discovered in one of the subaerial oxbows, then it would be explained this way: the trees were carried downstream, deposited, covered, then preserved in the river’s sediments.

Accordingly, the essential question becomes: how do we come to find oxbows in 3700 m of water?

Pursuing it leads to an historic matter: Adam Sedgwick’s “no worldwide flood, ever” conclusion that affects all modern science.(3) It turns out that Sedgwick erred: from the evidence, he should have concluded that subaerial landscapes were never subjected to a common flood. Instead, he concluded that there was never a worldwide flood, thereby passing judgment on the morphology of vast, submerged landscapes that he could not observe. No one could observe them until the publication of detailed bathymetry maps about a decade ago.

Therefore, the discovery of preserved tree chips in abyssal Bay of Bengal oxbows is not evidence of some ad hoc sediment transmission process conjured to fit observations to the prevailing, incorrect “no worldwide flood, ever” paradigm. Rather, the discovery of preserved wood chips obtained from oxbows submerged beneath 3700 m of water represents unambiguous evidence of the worldwide flood.

Thus, the Lee et. al. paper must be retracted. Its authors should be counseled to consider re-submitting with the purpose of correcting Sedgwick’s historic error.

 

References

  1. H. Lee, V. Galy, X. Feng, C. Ponton, A. Galy, C. France-Lanord, S.J. Feakins, Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 22518-22525 (2019).
  2. Maps: left, centered vicinity 7.91°N, 85.854°E; right, vicinity 26.732°N, 82.252°E. Google Earth, earth.google.com/web/.
  3. Sedgwick, A. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18, 1831.

Younger Dryas impacts: data and analysis

Today I wrote the following in an email to members of the Comet Research Group, as well as to authors associated with the recent South Africa YD impact paper.  The body of the email read: “Please see the attached .pdf that deals with YD impact craters in North America, South America, and South Africa. The data and its analysis play a part in identifying and resolving an historic error.” The following was attached to the email in a .pdf:

YD impact craters

To account for impact craters found in North America, one hypothesis holds that they were created at the YD boundary by ice chunks projected from a comet-on-ice sheet impact somewhere in the northern Midwest (US). Among the problems with this hypothesis: there is no primary comet remnant crater in North America; a North American impact could not account for YD impact craters and associated effects in South America (Pino, et al) and South Africa (Thackeray, et al) – ice chunk drafting notwithstanding (there’s a paper out there claiming that ice chunks ‘drafted’ from somewhere in the Midwest US to make their way to the Carolinas).

A more recent hypothesis holds that an impact in Greenland (Kjaer, Kurbatov, etc.) is the primary YD impact site. There are irreconcilable problems with this hypothesis, too: it is too far away from North America to account for cratering there; Greenlandic ice projections could not account for the primarily NW-SE axes in the Carolina bays; a Greenlandic impact could not account for YD impact craters in South America and South Africa; etc.

Instead, the primary impact site is in the Southern Ocean, southwest of South Africa. It is identified in my recent paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary,” available here.

What follows are data and its analysis that account for the YD ice impact craters found in North America, South America, and South Africa. The term ‘IO’ is my abbreviation for the ‘Impacting Object’ that created all reported YD effects.

Data:

Google Earth screen capture1: A close view of an impact crater in South Africa. Its grid location is available in the screen shot. Note the runoff channels as well as its SW-NE orientation.

CRG1

Google Earth screen capture2: The impact site from 1 but viewed from 12+ miles, as well as two lines. The shorter red line is drawn through the impact crater to convey the ice chunk’s direction at impact. The yellow line is parallel to the red line and of much greater extent for use in an upcoming comparison. Each line is oriented SW-NE.

CRG2

Google Earth screen captures3 & 4: The lines from screen capture2, but from much higher eye altitudes, 166+ miles on slide three, and 1733 miles on slide four.

CRG3CRG4

Google Earth screen capture5 shows the yellow line from the previous slides, as well as a line drawn through the trough at the center of the YD impact crescent in the Southern Ocean. The solid, dense core of the impacting object (IO) carved this trough on impact, so the white line depicts the IO’s pre-impact flight direction. Note that the lines are essentially parallel; the South African impact direction is slightly more northerly, understandable since it is found north of the IO site (indicates a northward fragmentation vector).

CRG5

Google Earth screen capture6 is the same view as screen capture5 but from a much higher eye altitude. Note that the white IO impact direction line extends over southern Argentina and Peru (i.e. Pilauco site). Note, too, that the white line’s orientation over South America is essentially NW-SE.

CRG6

Google Earth screen capture7 shows several impact craters in southern Argentina, all with a NW-SE orientation. Note the runoff channels that are very similar to those at the South Africa site.

CRG7

Google Earth screen capture8 shows several impact craters from North Carolina, all oriented NW-SE.

CRG8

Google Earth screen capture9 shows the IO back-propagated path as in the previous slide.

CRG9

Analysis:

The IO’s core trough indicates its immediately pre-impact direction, and though it did not cross directly over the South Pole, it came relatively close. Thus, the western hemisphere impact directions are mostly NW-SE, and the South African impact direction is SW-NE.

The IO’s altitude when over North America, combined with variability in fragment chunk location and initial velocity from the IO sphere, would account for reported variabilities in North American crater axis orientations; that is, the IO’s overflight path accounts for ice fragment crater orientations in North America. A list of representative craters associated with the flight path is found in my paper’s Appendix (South Africa paper was published after my paper).

It is likely that the directionally straight back-propagation path is not exact at greater distances from the impact site (i.e. North America) due to gravitational effects.

Runoff channels at the craters were carved by the fragments’ ice melt.  The IO impact was so massive that its runoff created the worldwide flood, as described in my paper.

The IO’s pre-impact ice fragments would be considered comets had they broken off much, much earlier in its Earth approach.

Geology’s “no worldwide flood, ever” hypothesis is indisputably wrong – it is the most profound error in the history of science. The YD event and the worldwide flood are synonymous.

We are in a new geologic era, The Post-Diluvian.

Regards,
Michael

Insight into human migrations based on DNA heat maps

Maps depicting human migrations, like the one from TransPacificproject.com, below, are based on the prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm.

MigrationAnatomicallyModHumans1

Data for such maps come from research like “A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians,” reported in a 2015 Smithsonian article. There we find the next map displaying, by color, DNA similarities among indigenous humans (dark = closely linked, clear = not closely linked). Note that native Australians are closely linked to native South Americans. DNA heat map

In the Smithsonian article, we read:

“More than 15,000 years ago, humans began crossing a land bridge called Beringia that connected their native home in Eurasia to modern-day Alaska. Who knows what the journey entailed or what motivated them to leave, but once they arrived, they spread southward across the Americas.

The prevailing theory is that the first Americans arrived in a single wave, and all Native American populations today descend from this one group of adventurous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. The find hints at the possibility that not one but two groups migrated across these continents to give rise to the first Americans.”

Thus, according to the article, and as depicted in the migration map, we are supposed to believe that, during the last ice age, native Australians made their way northward! more than 10,000 km through Asia, crossed an hypothesized land bridge through either the Bering Strait or the Aleutian Atoll, then made their way more than another 10,000 km to South America – all the while doing this without leaving their DNA signature!? What bunk.

A correct explanation for the native Australians-South American DNA similarities has nothing to do with migrations; instead it has to do with surviving the worldwide flood, described in my recent publication, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary.” That is, pre-flood humans from the same “clan” spanned the tropical to near-tropical expanse from Australia to SA, and flood survivors from the eastern and western extents of the region bear the family’s DNA signature. Related materials regarding Lemuria (and COL James Churchward’s work) can be found here.

Other maps depicting DNA similarities are accessible from eupedia, and several are shown, below (Mediterranean, Early European Farmer, and Atlantic admixtures).

Human DNA heat map for various admixtures in Mediterranean region 4Nov2019

If the darkest regions correlate with the origination for the particular admixture, then these DNA maps corroborate that humans from the pre-flood Mediterranean Basin survived upward to presently subaerial landscapes surrounding what is now the Mediterranean Sea. They did not migrate out of Africa, as claimed in the transpacific map.

Of particular interest to me is the greatest concentration of the Atlantic admixture found near the Basque region of Spain in the bottom map. This indicates that humans from the pre-flood Atlantic basin survived the worldwide flooding event 12,800 years before present. Their relatives from Atlantis were not so fortunate.

The correct explanation for “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My”

A recent paper titled, “Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My” states that “wood was not widely thought to survive export and burial in the oceans. This study shows that woody debris can survive thousands of kilometers of transport in rivers and in turbidites, to be deposited in the fan. Wood has been overlooked in quantification of organic carbon burial on continental margins.”

The notion that millions-year old wood could be found at various depths in the sediment column (meaning that the deposits occurred millions of years apart) – at the exact same location, thousands of miles from shore and more than two miles below present sea level! – should cause the authors, reviewers, and any scientist to question the matter. For, what is the probability that trees would float to the same spot, thousands of miles from the present coastline, sink more than two miles, and then become quickly covered in sediment so as to survive for millions of years? How did the sediments get there?! Where did the sediments originate?! What mechanism transported these tree-preserving sediments (in essentially stagnant water)?!

All rhetorical questions, for the idea that the trees became submerged thousands of miles from shore is as absurd as thinking that Monterey Canyon was created by subsurface flows. The paper’s statement is yet another example of geologists fitting observations to their erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm. It is fantasy masquerading as science.

I cannot believe that otherwise intelligent humans could put forth such garbage and then have it reviewed and accepted for publication as fact. So, over the past few days, I’ve engaged geologists, including one of the authors of the study, about the matter. What follows is the essence of the conversations, a presentation and analysis of Google Earth images from the region. Here is what I wrote:

– The first image is a screenshot of the Ganges system draining into the Bay, as well as its bed that flowed down the continental shelf (top center of screenshot).

Figure 1 Bay of Bengal region

– The second slide is a closer view of the northern part of the Bay. Circled in white is a feature that is magnified on the next slide.

Figure 2 Bay of Bengal closer view with circled feature

– Slide three’s feature is a river’s oxbows, found at a depth of 8258 ft below present sea level. (BTW: we see these features amidst what appears to be a straight channel – it identifies the track taken by the ship that produced the sounding data.)

Figure 3 Oxbows in closer view of circled region from Fig 2

– Circled in white and yellow on slide four are the feature from slide three (white) and a similar one (yellow). The yellow region is magnified on slide five.

Figure 4 Wider view of Fig 3 feature and another to its south

– The features on slide five are a river’s oxbows at a depth of 9421 feet below sea level.

Figure 5 Oxbows in closer view of Fig 4 region

– Slide six shows a wider view of the southern portion of the Bay off Sri Lanka. Circled in red on this slide is another feature that is magnified on slide seven.

Figure 6 Feature submerged east of Sri Lanka

– On slide seven, at a depth of 12,232 ft below sea level, are more oxbows. Based on the depth (12,232 ft, close to the 3700 m depth mentioned in the Feakins et. al. PNAS paper), I strongly suspect that this the location from which the IODP obtained the cores used for the study.

Figure 7 Oxbows in closer view of circled region of Fig 6

– Note that the depth of the oxbows increases in each image. Thus, the Ganges system flowed southward toward a pre-flood basin, an approximation for which is circled on the map on slide eight, below. (This map of pre-flood earth is available in my paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary,” that addresses the worldwide flood and geology’s historic “no flood, ever” error.)

Figure 8 Likely destination of Ganges preflood flows

– The entirety of this formerly subaerial river system explains why we find millions-year old tree remnants submerged in various sediment layers thousands of miles off the present shoreline. They were carried down by the Ganges, buried, then preserved by the river’s floods over the millions and millions of years before the region became submerged by the worldwide flood.

Regards,
Michael