Articles and their descriptions

Greetings.

The primary intent of this website is to chronicle my findings regarding the worldwide flood, plate tectonics (one post), 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

– Essay, “The Social Conquest of Earth” addresses fundamental questions such as Where are we from?, What are we?, and Where are we going?

– Essay, “An overlooked fact: we are ill-adapted to post-Flood Earth” concludes that, during the past 12,800 years, all social structures and economies have been directed toward ensuring human survival in the post-Flood ecosystem for which we are not properly adapted.

– Essay, “North America’s first permanent settlers: The Haida” uses published findings from the past six years to explain the Haida’s flood survival into the Pacific northwest.

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.

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

– Essay: ‘No worldwide flood, ever’ is 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).

– Essay, “A message not sent” contains an email message to a pseudo-scientist masquerading as a geographer and anthropologist.

– 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.

– 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.

– 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.

– 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.

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

The Social Conquest of Earth

Recently, I finished reading Edward O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth. In it, Wilson seeks answers to fundamental questions such as Where do we come from?, What are we?, and Where are we going? Although this work is touted for its interdisciplinary depth and associated findings, it nonetheless suffers from all the bad science related to geology’s “no worldwide flood, ever” blunder.  As such, I wrote to him the following email:

“Prof. Wilson,

Having read The Social Conquest of Earth, I think it appropriate to bring to your attention my recent paper, The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary, available here. It identifies and corrects a major scientific error, geology’s prevailing ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm. Among the consequences is this overlooked fact: humans are ill-adapted to the post-flood ecosystem into which we survived (discussion here). Our maladaptation accounts for our environmental abuses.

Best wishes,

Michael Jaye, PhD”

I have yet to receive a reply.

Nonetheless, I address some of his book’s errors in the following essay.

Science

Wilson writes about science and its role in searching for objective truth. He says, “Science…is the wellspring of all the knowledge we have of the real world that can be tested and fitted to preexisting knowledge [italics added]. It is the arsenal of technologies and inferential mathematics needed to distinguish the true from the false. It formulates the principles and formulas that tie all this knowledge together. Science belongs to everybody. Its constituent parts can be challenged by anybody in the world who has sufficient information to do so.”

Google Maps (satellite view) and Google Earth provide new and sufficient information to challenge and overturn a fundamental tenet in one of science’s constituent parts, geology. The new maps allow us to see the topography of the ocean floors, and they reveal submerged river systems throughout the planet, some of which extend hundreds of miles into abyssal plains, and most of which are beneath more than two miles of water. Anyone who has studied fluid dynamics would recognize that concentrated flows could not persist over such distances, particularly through abyssal plains where causational, gravitational gradients would be minimal. In fact, out in abyssal plains the greatest gravitational gradients would be perpendicular to channel beds, meaning that the channels beds could not exist. Yet, there they are. Furthermore, cores obtained from some of these submerged river beds contain terrestrial sands, gravels, and even ancient tree remnants (see here). If hypothesized, high-speed subsurface flows carved these features – as geologists claim, then why do the channel beds exist? Wouldn’t the flow speeds scour the beds? How would meanders form? And how could channel beds contain terrestrial materials? These are rhetorical, sarcastic questions, because geologists’ claim that the submerged structures were carved by turbidity flows is an example of fitting observations (channels) to “no Flood” theory. It is fantasy masquerading as science.

The drill region from which cores containing tree remnants were obtained and used for Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19My is shown on the 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.

The new maps caused me to investigate why geologists believe that there was never a worldwide flood, and what I found is indisputable: Adam Sedgwick erred when he concluded (in 1831) that there was never a worldwide flood. From the evidence before him, Sedgwick should have concluded that presently subaerial landscapes were never subjected to a common flood. Who would dispute the fact that presently exposed landscapes were never subjected to a common flood event? No one. So, let us be clear: that presently exposed landscapes were never flooded is wholly different from the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick erroneously passed judgment on submerged landscapes whose topography he could not observe – no one could see into the abyss until the maps were published about a decade ago. Sedgwick assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been here since its beginning thereby negating the existence of the very thing he sought! Had Sedgwick drawn the correct conclusion, had we waited nearly 200 years to decide the Flood matter when the maps would provide indisputable evidence of submerged river systems, then it would have been obvious: there was a worldwide flood. Unfortunately for geology and anthropology, all that has followed from Sedgwick’s error is likely wrong – practitioners in these disciplines have been fitting all subsequent observations to erroneous theory for nearly two centuries. Perhaps worse, Sedgwick’s “no Flood” finding has been accepted and celebrated for so long that anyone thinking otherwise is automatically castigated as an unscientific, bible-thumping rube.

Speaking of unscientific, please note that Wilson’s definition of ‘science’ includes the phrase “fitted to preexisting knowledge.” As mentioned above, this is absolutely wrong – we do not fit observations to preexisting knowledge; if observations contradict what is known, then it is the “knowledge” that must be challenged and then discarded. That someone of Wilson’s stature (he’s professor emeritus of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology at Harvard) would include “fitting” observations and conclusions to “preexisting knowledge” indicates that he recognizes the speculative nature of his work. As such, he defined science in such a manner so as to make his work scientific….

Where are we from?

When Wilson addresses “Where are we from?,” he writes: “The cradle of humanity was not the deep rainforests with their towering canopies and dark interiors. Nor was it the relatively featureless grasslands and deserts. Rather, humanity was born in the savanna forest, favored by its complex mosaic of different local habitats.”

His claim that we are out of Africa is a well-accepted tenet in anthropology, inferred from the notion that we evolved from extinct, related species whose remnants and artefacts have been found in Africa. This belief, repeated so often and accepted as true for so long, is an example of fitting observations (bones, tools, etc.) into what is supposedly known. Thus, we are out of Africa because that is where the artefacts were discovered and because we and our ancestors have been occupying presently exposed landscapes for hundreds of millions of years. This belief is a consequence of “no Flood,” and it is wrong.

Instead, we come from landscapes that are now under more than two miles of water – our homelands were submerged approximately 12,800 years ago during a planet-altering event that took place in a geological eyeblink. Rather than being “out of Africa,” we are instead from vast portions of the dark tan regions depicted on the map below, a model of pre-Flood Earth (found in my paper and book). The blue regions approximate pre-flood oceans and seas, and the beige regions represent presently exposed landscapes.


With more than two miles 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).

A few comments about the map: (1) The atmosphere would have occupied abyssal (tan) regions, which means that the beige regions were much cooler because they were more than two miles above them. The adiabatic lapse rate has temperatures decrease approximately 3.5oF per thousand feet, meaning that temperatures in the tan, abyssal pre-Flood regions were roughly 50oF warmer than the beige regions. (2) The Flood’s waters present an incredible heat sink, so pre-Flood Earth would have been much, much warmer than the present. (3) The thick layer of atmosphere above non-tropical tan regions would have attenuated the sun’s higher wavelengths; tan and beige regions at equatorial to tropical latitudes would have been subjected to much stronger UV light than non-tropical regions. (4) The tallest mountain peaks were at the limits of, perhaps even above, the pre-Flood atmosphere. (5) Due to atmospheric attenuation, all but the highest magnitude stars and planets would have been invisible in the tan regions.

From all this, we can infer that humans are furless because we evolved in the warm, abyssal regions; our ape relatives have fur because the pre-Flood landscapes to which they adapted (beige regions) were so much cooler. All mammals, living and extinct, including other homo species, whose remnants have been discovered in presently exposed landscapes (beige) would have required fur for survival.

Ancestors of darker-skinned humans evolved in tropical or equatorial latitudes where UV rays would have penetrated to occupied landscapes; hence, their melanin content. Likewise, lighter-skinned humans evolved in non-tropical latitudes where the atmosphere would have attenuated higher frequency wavelengths. Atmospheric attenuation also accounts for a recent finding that claims humans began seeing blue only recently.

Regarding our supposed relatives from Africa: their remnants were discovered in landscapes that we did not occupy. If they were relatives of homo sapiens, then they migrated down into the abyss from what are now African landscapes, and, over millions and millions of years in abyssal regions, they somehow evolved into homo sapiens. How did that happen? How long did it take? Open questions.

When one considers the vast, pre-Flood regions that humans occupied, it becomes obvious that an unimaginable number would drown in the Flood. Simple exponential growth models based on pre-industrial age population estimates indicate that Flood survivors would number in the thousands. Some would make it by boat; others, likely outcasts, would have been living in pre-flood upland regions; many would have lived in the pre-flood Mediterranean basin.

Le déluge de Noe et les compagnons by Léon Comerre (1911) Nantes Museum of Arts (Public Domain)

Med denizens had a survival advantage, time, because it took weeks after the celestial impact until its Flood waters attained such a height so as to afford passage into the basin through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar. During that period, Med inhabitants would have recognized the impact-induced changes to their weather, which would have included uncharacteristic cold as well as persistent rains. When the Flood waters appeared, Med survivors either boarded whatever crafts might have been available, or they fled upward. (Thus, the legend of Noah’s Ark originates from Med survivors.)

Those who inhabited pre-Flood regions near those countries now bordering the Med had relatively short distances to cover in order to attain safety. This explains the human DNA heat map, shown below, that implies by density (darkest coloration) where a certain trait finds its origin. Note that regions of greatest concentration for this particular trait (Mediterranean Admixture) are found along the Mediterranean basin’s shoreline.

Others survived upward. The Haida, noted seafarers, followed the Pacific shoreline eastward on the Flood’s rising waters. COL James Churchward investigated ancient writings in India and other parts of southeast Asia, and from them he introduced to us the legend of Lemuria (Mu), a civilization of common people that spanned large portions of the Pacific basin (discussed here). His work suffered rebuke and marginalization because it contradicted “no Flood.” Yet the DNA map, below, shows that Lemuria’s surviving descendants from Australia are closely linked to its survivors in South America.

DNA heat map showing inferred closest similarities between indigenous humans from Australia and South America (deep red) and lesser similarities in lighter colors. White circles indicate very few inferred DNA similarities. (Image reproduced with permission from Smithsonian.)

In an attempt to fit the DNA similarities to the consequences of “no Flood,” anthropologists concocted the human migration map, below (from TransPacificproject.com). From it, 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 some 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!? Pure fantasy.

Atlantis existed, too. For those interested, my Explorers Club talk “Resolving the Problem of Atlantis” is available here.

It would not be over for survivors once The Flood’s waters attained their present level, as they would encounter a much cooler Earth. Unlike the environment for which they were adapted, the new Earth would require adequate clothing, as well as warm shelter and suitable food. Caves would provide immediate shelter, and campfires would constitute gathering places that provided warmth and food. Imagine the consequences involved with acquiring adequate food sources in this new, cooler environment while maintaining warmth and shelter…. It would take cooperation to survive; division of labor would be a necessary consequence.

Within the first few years after the Flood, survivors would have to deal with effects induced by the new, ocean-driven weather patterns that would transform the planet (e.g. pre-flood rain forests became deserts and vice versa, inland seas would evaporate, etc.). The post-Flood Earth environment would cause mass extinctions because many species could neither adapt nor find suitable habitats (they are now among the known Younger-Dryas extinctions). The changed weather would cause humans to migrate in search of adaptable regions bearing resources necessary for survival, some of which might be correctly depicted in the TransPacificproject.com map.

The story of Adam and Eve is a Flood legend. Naked humans were ejected from their natural, pre-Flood landscapes (Eden), and their survival into post-Flood ecosystems changed their nature – they had to toil to survive. The snake, Satan, is a metaphor for the immense, comet-like object that delivered the Flood (described in my paper). Note the snakes in the painting, below, as well as the Chinese New Year dragon-like serpent that is depicted above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth (representing the Flood that it delivered).

A slight, yet related, aside: the various species of animals and birds found in the Galapagos chain either survived upward into landscapes that were suitable for their pre-Flood adaptations, or they were there prior to the Flood. Imagine what was lost….

What are we?

According to Wison, “Humanity is a biological species in a biological world. In every function of our bodies and mind and at every level, we are exquisitely well adapted to live on this particular planet.” One need only look about to recognize how wrong this statement is: we are clothed, we live in buildings that provide shelter and warmth, we eat processed foods – none of this is naturally occurring. These simple, omnipresent observations indicate that we are a maladapted species.

Because we are maladapted, we continuously struggle to find suitable environments and food. A consequential, important idea: our continued survival necessitates the use (abuse?) of Earth’s resources. Wilson agrees with this, as he observes that humans “are an evolutionary chimera, living on intelligence steered by the demands of animal instinct. This is the reason we are mindlessly dismantling the biosphere, and with it, our own prospects for permanent existence.”

We are also eusocial, about which Wilson says, “Our ancestors were one of only two dozen or so animal lines ever to evolve eusociality, the next major level of biological organization above the organismic. There, group members across two or more generations stay together, cooperate, care for the young, and divide labor in a way favoring reproduction of some individuals over that of others.” I have no idea what humans encountered in the pre-flood abyss, but it is certain that it was there that we acquired necessary eusocial behaviors. Abyssal plains are likely to have been grassy, which would account for our upright posture and height. Families would have created nest sites near rivers and lakes. There they likely divided labor – e.g. hunters and gatherers would set about to acquire whatever food was available within walking distance (what was our pre-Flood diet?). Larger nesting regions, cities and states, certainly existed (e.g. the aforementioned Lemuria and Atlantis).

Because of our brains, we now dominate the biosphere; all other species that survived and could adapt to the post-Flood biosphere have not had time to adjust to our presence. As Wilson says, they “were not prepared for the onslaught.” However, our numbers are constrained by Earth’s finite, non-renewable resources that dictate its carrying capacity. We are our only predators, now capable of creating and distributing weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons.

What lifted us to this god-like estate? Wilson calls this a question of enormous importance for self-understanding. The answer: The Flood. In the correct context that there was a worldwide Flood and that we are a surviving, sentient, maladapted species, then it follows that all social structures, infrastructures, and economies that have arisen over the last 12,800 years have been directed toward our survival.

Where are we going?

In the literal sense, until we discover a planet that exactly resembles pre-Flood Earth, then, as Wilson states, “nobody is going to emigrate from this planet, not ever.” Should such a planet exist, it will be outside our solar system, making it so distant as to be unattainable. Therefore, extra-terrestrial travel would constitute a waste of resources.

In a figurative sense, it seems to me that a universal, correct understanding of our past might play a significant part in helping us to better survive. Unfortunately, based on the minimal response to my findings, such a realization seems unlikely. So, I consider it quite likely that someone is going to initiate an event that will have Flood-like consequences , and it’s likely to be biological….

An overlooked fact: we are ill-adapted to post-Flood Earth

Perhaps surprisingly, the worldwide flood (aka The Flood), has nothing to do with religion, though it might have inspired several. Instead, it is a scientific matter that involved a very large comet-like object impacting Earth about 12,800 years before present in what is now the Southern Ocean. By comet-like, I mean that it was primarily composed of ice, that it was porous, and that it was fragile; comets are fragments from this class of larger celestial bodies. Due to its composition and size, the impacting object (IO) delivered a nearly unimaginable amount of water that inundated abyssal landscapes. The newly introduced water transformed the planet in a matter of weeks, and it caused the extinction of myriad species. Were it not for our brains, it would have killed us, too. All of this is described in my paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary,” available here.

Geologists will immediately dismiss any claim that there was a worldwide flood because one of their science’s primary axioms holds that The Flood never occurred. For those unaware, the reason that present-day geology has us believing that there was never a flood is due to Adam Sedgwick. A renaissance man of the early 19th century, Sedgwick was a Cambridge University professor, an ordained minister in the Church of England, and the president of the Geological Society of London. Seeking evidence of The Flood, Sedgwick and his geologist colleagues set about Europe searching for remnant sediments and formations. But the sought-for confirmation did not exist. So, after considerable reflection, Sedgwick concluded that there was never a worldwide flood.

In his 1831 address to his society, Sedgwick recanted his belief in The Flood – big news coming from someone of his renown. His recantation has enjoyed lasting effect: to this day, his ‘no flood, ever’ conclusion remains celebrated as the triumph of science over religion. ‘No flood’ permeates modern thought, and it has been accepted for so long that anyone thinking otherwise is immediately castigated as a non-scientist, if not a Bible-thumping rube.

Yet Sedgwick erred. From the evidence before him, Sedgwick should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never inundated by a common flood. That is an indisputably correct statement, yet different from the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick went too far: he passed judgment on the morphology of vast, submerged landscapes that he could not observe. He assumed that Earth’s present amount of water has always been here.

Because of its far-reaching consequences, Sedgwick’s ‘no worldwide flood, ever’ conclusion will eventually gain universal recognition as the most profound error in the history of science. Folks, it’s not even close: “no flood, ever” adversely affects our understanding of who we are, where we are from, and what has happened to our planet. For the past 200 years, we have had it all wrong.

Geology’s incorrect finding persisted for several 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 within the past decade. (3) The fear of castigation for associating with a presumed religious tenet, as well as associated cowardice among lettered academics, prevented critical review. (4) Research money (an associated discussion, here).

Among the error’s unfortunate consequences is that ubiquitous cultural accounts of The Flood, including the story of Noah, are castigated as the myths of uneducated ancients; instead, they are legends of survivor accounts that have been passed down over the ensuing 600 or so generations. The Flood made a lasting impression, no?

To understand why The Flood legends persist, we need to consider what survivors encountered, and to do that, we must have an idea of pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown below (blue represents pre-flood bodies of water; yellow represent post-flood exposed landscapes; tan represents pre-flood subaerial regions that are now submerged). Humans evolved in the dark tan regions – we are not out of Africa; regional variability in abyssal UV exposure accounts for our pigment diversity. Furthermore, in the absence of the heat sink represented by The Flood’s waters, the tan regions of pre-flood Earth would have been much warmer than the yellow regions that we now occupy. We are furless as a consequence. [Our simian relatives evolved in the yellow, pre-flood landscapes that were more than two miles above humanity’s abyssal regions; environments at that altitude would have been much cooler (comparison made at a fixed latitude). Hence, their fur. We encounter them now because we survived upward to their habitat.]

Figure6 blog

Back to The Flood survivors. Humans would have seen the IO on its approach, likely for a considerable time. It would have dominated the sky as it neared Earth. Its incredibly long tail would have been illuminated by the sun – this would be the origin of dragon and snake images associated with the event and its effects. Most would have felt the earthquakes induced by the IO’s impact. Immediately afterward, its ice would begin to melt, and the newly introduced, cold waters would then course their way through abyssal regions (tan, above).

Chinese New Year Dragon w water coming from mouth

Humans would have been terrified by the first sign of the water, and survival would become their only concern. Now, consider the vast, pre-Flood abyssal landscapes that humans occupied (tan, in map above) and how far inhabitants would have been from survivable regions…. An unimaginable number of humans would drown; survivors would number in the thousands. Some would make it by boat; others, likely outcasts, would have been living in pre-flood upland regions (yellow, above); many would have lived in the pre-flood Mediterranean.

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

Med denizens had a survival advantage, time, because it took weeks after the IO impact until The Flood’s waters attained such a height so as to afford passage into the basin through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar. During that period, Med inhabitants would have recognized the IO-induced changes to their weather, which would have included uncharacteristic cold as well as persistent rains. When The Flood waters appeared, Med survivors either boarded whatever crafts might have been available, or they had to flee upward. Those who inhabited pre-Flood regions near what are now the countries bordering the Med had relatively short distances to cover in order to attain safety.

A human DNA heat map, shown below, implies by density (darkest coloration) where a certain trait finds its origin. Note that regions of greatest concentration for this particular trait are found in northern regions along the Mediterranean basin’s shoreline.

European Admixture DNA heat map

It would not be over for survivors once The Flood’s waters attained their present level, as they would encounter a much cooler Earth. Unlike the environment for which they were adapted, the new Earth would require adequate clothing, as well as warm shelter and suitable food.

Within the first few years, survivors would have to deal with effects induced by the new, ocean-driven weather patterns that would transform the planet (e.g. pre-flood rain forests became deserts and vice versa, inland seas would evaporate, etc.). The post-Flood Earth environment would cause mass extinctions because many species could neither adapt nor find suitable habitats (they are now among the known Younger-Dryas extinctions). The changed weather would cause humans to migrate in search of adaptable regions bearing resources necessary for survival.

Nearly 13,000 years after The Flood, we continue our struggle for suitable environments and food – all because we are not properly adapted to the post-flood ecosystem. A consequential, important idea: our continued survival necessitates the use (abuse?) of Earth’s resources in order to provide suitable food, shelter, and warmth. Arguably, over the ensuing 12,800 years, all social structures and economies have been directed toward ensuring human survival. Yet, we are oblivious to this realization because of geology’s historic error.

Would it help us, as a species, to better survive if we had a correct understanding of our past and what has happened to our planet? I think that it would. If you happen to agree, then I would appreciate it if you were to share this essay with friends and colleagues.

A message not sent

Background

A little more than a decade ago, I uncovered geology’s “no flood, ever” error.  Yet, even with the publication of my paper, there has been scant recognition of its far-reaching consequences. Why?

If you’ve ever dealt with academics, then you’re likely aware that, in general, they do not like to be told that they’re wrong. So, imagine what I am up against in making geologists and anthropologists aware that their sciences are fundamentally flawed…. The response: I have been ridiculed, dis-invited, and ostracized by academics, including former friends & colleagues.

To the subject of this post: over the years, I’ve engaged individuals from various disciplines regarding geology’s error. Of particular note, I remain amidst an exchange with an academic from a southern continent whose research and publications intersect with mine. I’ve learned that there are times when it is better not to engage what’s to gain? So, after drafting the following message, I think it better to publish it here rather than send it to this individual.

The message not sent:

As a follow-on to our earlier conversations, I thought to make you aware of a dialogue I shared with a lettered individual who recognizes the effect that “no flood, ever” has on misunderstandings regarding humanity’s past, particularly oral traditions. A recent email from this individual contains this:

As someone who is connected to a folk-movement of Polynesians and Native Americans from various tribes all asking the same questions — “Why do we all have a flood story?” “Where did we come from?” “Why do we look alike?” “Why do we share similar elements of language?” “Why does the story of Māui of Oceania sound like Hopi and Diné Maasauwu and Blood Clot Boy / Rabbit Boy of the Interior tribes?” — I am certain there is international interest in answering such questions and restoring history to its correct arc.

I have become increasingly convinced that task is one that must seriously take into account the many indigenous perspectives on pre-history including the religious traditions without allowing an atheist bias to dismiss out of hand the symbolic / mnemonic language of religions as modes of recording actual historical events — celestial phenomenon like eclipses, comet sightings, calamities, migrations, etc. It is glaringly obvious that “history” took a wrong turn in a number of places, which includes deliberate and systematic erasure of indigenous identities, languages, and oral histories, the confusion introduced by centuries of treasure-seeking, wanton tomb raiding at ancient sites, and desecration of ancestral burial sites.

The gatekeepers of the earth’s deep past are in the now marginalized populations of folk who dwell not in cities but on the plains, in the mountains, in the deserts, and upon the sea, many of whom are unaware of the wealth of knowledge they are sitting on, deeply encoded in the oral (songs, chants, legends) and material cultures.

In my previous correspondences with you, I noted that you perpetuate the marginalization of flood-related oral traditions because your work adheres to the indisputably wrong yet prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm. Those oral traditions are not the myths you claim them to be; rather, they are legends that follow from an incredible event that transformed our planet and, correspondingly, our nature. Your works play a part in the erasures, and those of us on the correct side of history’s arc are justified in wondering: can you correct the damage you’ve done?

End message not sent

 

North America’s first permanent settlers: The Haida

Over the past months, I have attempted to establish contact with leaders of the Haida people, as well as others supposedly connected to the tribe. My intent was to inform them of my findings, which could help them to better understand their past. Because those efforts have been unsuccessful, I decided to write about the matter.

My interest in the Haida renewed last fall when I came across an article, “Archaeologist make historic find in Haida Gwaii,” available here. The researchers mentioned in the article had found pollen spores in charcoal remnants and dated them back 13,000 years before present – 2000 years before records of known Haida occupation of the region.

This finding reminded me of my initial interest in the Haida, formed from another news account from 2014, “Archaeologists discover 13,800-year-old underwater site at Haida Gwaii,” reported here and here. Sonar images revealed Haida artifacts, such as fishing weirs, beneath 120+ meters of Pacific water. Archaeologists claim that the site was exposed at the height of the last ice age when geologists believe the ocean levels were much lower. This explanation rests on geology’s indisputably erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm that affects all modern science and associated fields. Unsurprisingly, the explanation is wrong.

Here is what happened:

The Haida were seafarers who practiced their craft in the pre-flood Pacific Ocean. An approximation to the Pacific’s pre-flood extent is shown in Figure 8 of my paper, The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary, published about a year ago in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. A copy of that map is shown, below, with a yellow oval added to identify the likely Haida pre-flood habitation region. Note that what is now the Hawaiian Island chain was part of a pre-flood landmass situated amidst the former ocean. Any similarities in Haida and Hawaiian culture, language, and folklore are likely to find their source in a common people indigenous to this pre-flood region.

Haida Hawaii region on preflood map 28May2020

Who knows how long the Haida practiced their seamanship prior to the flood? But this much is certain: their seafaring skills would allow them to survive the event. There is no doubt that they saw to their east the massive celestial object that would deliver the flood (I call it the IO, for impacting object, in my paper) as it overflew North America just prior to impact. It is likely they experienced the earthquake shock from the IO impact. They would have recognized that something was amiss when, soon after the impact, the IO’s melted ice waters began coursing their way around the planet and inundating the Haida’s former homeland. At the first sign of rising water, they would have occupied their crafts, and they would have done all they could to keep the eastern extent of the rising ocean’s coastline within their view. This eastward journey is likely to have lasted weeks.

When the oceans’ level reached that of the passageway into the Mediterranean Sea through the Strait of Gibraltar, there would have been a halt in the water level rise in the Earth’s newly-connected oceans as the Med basin filled. At this time, thinking that the flooding had ceased, the Haida set up camp, about 100m above the cessation level and ~120m below the present ocean level.

However, the flood waters had not attained their final level. As a consequence, once the Med had completely flooded, the worldwide ocean level would resume its rise. This would have caused the Haida to abandon this first encampment, man their craft once again, and continue their journey eastward until the water level attained its current extent. This explains the discovery of Haida remnants off the Pacific coast six years ago in 120+m of water – the remains were from their initial encampment. (Makes for a good movie, no?)

Although there might have been earlier human forays into North America prior to the worldwide flood, they would have been short-lived because, at more than two miles above the level of the former abyss, it would have been too cold for furless humans to sustain permanent settlements, particularly during any ice ages. Thus, the Haida’s flood journey makes them the first permanent settlers in North America, though they are not indigenous in the sense that they survived into North America; they are not originally from North America. Other early North Americans are likely to have arrived through Central America or the Gulf of Mexico region. All native Americans are descendants of worldwide flood survivors – there are no humans indigenous to North America. 

Let us recognize that the flood’s waters forever and irreversibly changed the planet and its ecosystem. As with all flood survivors, the Haida had to adapt to a new Earth, a non-trivial task that continues to the present.

Related: The human migration myth

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 another 10,000+ km to South America – all the while doing so without leaving their DNA signature!? What bunk.

The correct explanation for the DNA similarities between native Australians and native South American has nothing to do with migrations; instead it has to do with surviving the worldwide flood. Pre-flood humans from the same “clan” spanned the tropical to near-tropical expanse from Australia to South America, 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

The darkest regions correlate with the origination for the particular admixture, meaning that the 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.

Conclusions

The Haida are North America’s first permanent settlers.

Because of geology’s error, myths such as the human migrations depicted in the TransPacific map perpetuate as accepted science. In addition, ubiquitous cultural accounts of the worldwide flood are treated as the musings of ancient, unintelligent humans when, in actuality, they are accounts of an historic event.

Prior to the flood, abyssal landscapes were much warmer because (1) the flood’s waters present an incredible heat sink that has made post-flood Earth cooler, and (2) higher atmospheric pressure in abyssal regions.

Humans evolved in pre-flood abyssal landscapes (dark tan regions on the pre-flood map), and its warmer environment explains why we are furless. 

Importantly, we should recognize that we are ill-adapted to Earth’s post-flood environments, and our survival necessitates environmental abuses such as resource exploitation.

 

Simultaneous Impacts Configured Earth’s Landforms

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. My peer-reviewed paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary” begins the process of correcting that error.

The second major error deals with the instantiation of the planet’s tectonic plates, and it is the subject of the present post. 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, I’ve devoted portions of the COVID-19 quarantine period to re-working a paper I submitted to Geomorphology several years ago. The editor sent the paper our for “expert” review, but it was deemed too radical for publication.

Geology is fundamentally flawed, which means that anthropology is, too. As such, we must forget most of what has been learned over the past 60 years and start over again.

Geology’s re-start continues with the following:

Simultaneous Impacts Configured Earth’s Landforms

ABSTRACT

The simultaneous impacts of two eastward moving, immensely energetic objects configured Earth’s land masses and instilled its present rotational velocity (day) as well as its obliquity.  The Simultaneous Impacts Hypothesis explains continental movement and positioning, as well as when Plate Tectonics began.

Keywords: simultaneous impacts; plate tectonics.

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Modern geology follows two fundamental tenets, “no worldwide flood, ever” and Plate Tectonics. Each was conjured on incomplete data; that is, those responsible for the hypotheses did not have access to ocean floor bathymetry information available on today’s maps. The former, initiated by Adam Sedgwick in 1831, is indisputably wrong (Jaye, 2019), and the latter remains subject to controversies ranging from violations of spherical harmonics (Lyushkin, 1967) to the blueschist conundrum (Palin & White, 2016).

In this paper, we apply a first principle approach to continental positioning based on the new map information and basic physics. From them, we create a novel hypothesis that replaces presently accepted assumptions formed on incorrect interpretations of previous, less complete information. We conclude that a brief and energetic event configured the Earth’s continents, ocean basins, and major mountain ranges, and it instilled the planet’s present day and obliquity. The Simultaneous Impact Hypothesis retains the assumption that many of Earth’s large land forms were once connected.

2.1 SIMULTANEOUS IMPACTS

The energy required to configure Earth’s landforms to their current positions was delivered by the simultaneous impact of two eastward-moving, solid, massive objects whose remnants measure approximately 800 km in diameter. The objects struck at an angle nearly parallel to the planet’s surface.  The northern object (1N) initial strike location was in the equatorial region northeast of Australia and the southern object (1S) strike location was southwest of New Zealand. Impact locations are identified by red X’s in Figure 1 where the red arrows indicate the impacting objects’ direction of travel. The objects’ shallow impact angles created troughs (rather than craters) that are easily detected in Google Maps (satellite view) or Google Earth. Remnant troughs are identified in red ovals in Fig. 1; they bound the northern and southern extents of South America forming the Caribbean and Scotia Seas, respectively. Impact antipode locations are identified by the yellow circles in Fig. 1. The 1S antipode is Iceland, and the 1N antipode is found in the equatorial region of the mid-Atlantic ridge. The antipodes were created by impact shocks passing through the planet. Iceland’s volcanic activity affirms it as the antipode of the 1S impact site; Africa’s transit, described below, cauterized the 1N antipode, though it remains seismically active (see Figure 6).

The origin and nature of the impacting objects is unknown. However, their shallow impact angles might indicate that the objects suffered decayed orbits.

Simultaneous impacts Fig1 April2020
Figure 1. Red X’s and ovals identify the simultaneous impact locations and remnant troughs, respectively. Yellow circles indicate impact antipode locations.

2.2 AFRICA AND INDIA

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 significant 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 Malaysia. This collision induced a torque to the moving Indian landmass that sheared Madagascar off of Africa as well as India (Figure 2d). (The approximate India-Malaysia collision location, identified by the yellow X on Fig. 2, has its antipode in central North America. This accounts for recent seismic activity in Oklahoma.)

Simultaneous Impacts Fig2 April 2020
Figure 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.

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, as shown on Figure 3.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig3 April 2020Figure 3. The white arrow identifies India’s transit on the sphere, a great circle route.

2.3 NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

The simultaneous impacts also compressed, severed, and 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; landmass compression lasted until impact forces overcame the continents’ static friction forces. The Andes are tightly formed along South America’s western coast due to the influence of 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.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig4 April 2020
Figure 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 (Fig. 5b), most of which are now 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. This compression uplifted the formerly ancient sea beds that are found along North America’s west coast.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig5 April 2020Figure 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 eastward 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 (Fig. 5d) created a set of four essentially parallel west-to-east remnant scrapes in the Pacific Ocean floor (Fig. 5c). The Rocky Mountain chain was partially unfurled by the westward acting forces from these drag mechanisms (black double arrows, Fig. 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 on the left of Fig. 5.

Thus, to summarize: the simultaneous impacts created the present configuration of the tectonic plates. Some landmass boundary regions remain seismically active, as shown on the USGS earthquake map on Figure 6.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig6 April 2020Figure 6.  Plate boundaries and recent seismic activity are shown on this USGS map.

2.4 INSTILLING THE PLANET’S DAY

The simultaneous impacts imparted sufficient energy to affect the rotation of the planet, resulting in the current day. We note on Figure 7 that the southern impact’s trough exactly coincides with lines of latitude (55o and 60o south). This indicates that the Earth’s rotation matches the direction of the 1S impact, meaning that the simultaneous impacts created the planet’s day.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig7 April 2020Figure 7. The southern impact trough coincides with lines of latitude.

 2.5 INSTILLING THE PLANET’S OBLIQUITY

India’s impact into the Asian sub-continent, or Africa’s halt, or both, induced the planet’s obliquity. Evidence remains in the 1N’s impact trough, which has a southern turn (or rightward turn relative to the object’s travel direction). This is understood as follows: as 1N traveled straight in its impact direction, India’s collision and/or Africa’s halt caused the planet to tilt northward while 1N continued to plow eastward. Thus, the 1N remnant trough bends southward, shown in Figure 8.

Simultaneous Impacts Fig8 April 2020
Figure 8.  The white line is superimposed over 1N’s transit path.  Note that the path curves southward.

2.6 OTHER EFFECTS

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, thought to be a mechanism causing continental separation, is instead the remnant of a compression wave that preceded North America’s and South America’s eastward transits over landscapes weakened by the impacts and continental transits. This accounts for the ridge’s nearly uniform bisection of the Atlantic basin.

Volcanic fissures that eventually would lead to the formation of the Hawaiian Island system were created by the 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 9. 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.

Simultaneous impacts Fig9update April 2020Figure 9. 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, and the mass extinctions they caused place the event on the order of 63-65 million years before present.

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 would 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.

3. CONCLUSION

The simultaneous impact of two massive and energetic objects configured the continents and tectonic plates, the ocean basins, major mountain ranges, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Landmass movements also instilled the planet’s day and obliquity. The simultaneous impacts and their effects caused a mass extinction, which places the event somewhere between 63-65 million years before present. Thus, we understand the source of the tectonic plates, as well as when they were created.

 

REFERENCES 

Earthquake map with tectonic plates from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map (2020).

Google Earth and Google Maps satellite view (2020).

Jaye, M. (2019) The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 19, No 1, pp. 71-83.

Lyustikh, E. N. (1967) Criticism of Hypotheses of Convection and Continental Drift. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 14, pp. 347-352.

Palin, R. M. & White, R. W. (2016) Emergence of blueschists on Earth linked to secular changes in oceanic crust composition. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 60–64.

 

‘No worldwide flood, ever’ is 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 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