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. As such, we must forget most of what has been learned over the past 60 years and start over.

So, here’s how the plates were configured 63-65 million years ago. They continue to recover from the event.

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

Another schematic of the approach path is shown, below. During approach, the IO was at its highest while over North America, which accounts for the continent-wide spread in its debris field (from off the coast of Monterey, CA, to the Carolina Bays). image-7

Analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Michael

Insight into human migrations based on DNA heat maps

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

MigrationAnatomicallyModHumans1

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

In the Smithsonian article, we read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1 Bay of Bengal region

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

Figure 2 Bay of Bengal closer view with circled feature

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 5 Oxbows in closer view of Fig 4 region

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

Figure 6 Feature submerged east of Sri Lanka

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

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

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

Figure 8 Likely destination of Ganges preflood flows

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

Regards,
Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncritical? Indeed: the early geologists’ “no flood, ever” conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick and his peers instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. Whereas it is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick and the other early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that they could not observe; they assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning. Their error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were once exposed and later inundated by some event.

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, and (2) we could not see into the bathymetry to observe submerged landscapes until only recently. Today, however, new maps allow us to observe the topography of ocean floors where we find former river systems.

For instance, the map on Figure 1 depicts bathymetry details to the west of the Monterey and Big Sur coasts of California. Note the many former rivers that made their way down and into the abyssal plain from upland areas. The combined drainages flowed to the southwest (lower left on Fig. 1); this terminus region is now submerged in more than four kilometers (2.5 miles) of water.

Monterey Canyon bathymetry 14Oct2019Figure 1. Bathymetry map off the California coast near Monterey and Big Sur.

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

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

Figure6 blogFigure 2. With more than 3 km of water graphically removed, a model of land and sea distributions in pre-flood Earth shows previously exposed but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue).

The pre-flood atmosphere would have covered the dark tan, formerly abyssal regions. As a consequence, this expanse would have experienced higher temperatures, primarily due to the absence of the incredible heat sink represented by the present oceans (higher atmospheric pressure would be another factor). We find evidence of pre-flood human activity nearly exclusively in tropical latitudes because, at more than 3 kilometers (two miles) above the former sea level, most of the yellow regions on Fig. 2 were too cold for human habitation. An immediate consequence: Fig. 2 should transform anthropology because furless humans evolved in tropical and near-tropical portions of the tan regions; we are not out of Africa.

To explain the drainages off the California coast, we must recognize that pre-flood California would have been more than 3+ km above the former sea level, and winds uplifted by the nearly vertical continental shelf condensed to create persistent rainfall that eroded and rounded the hills. The collective rainfall runoff drained down the nearly vertical slope where it acquired sufficient kinetic energy to carve Monterey Canyon (dominant feature in the upper part of Fig. 1). Runoff flows carved all the submerged drainages that can be identified throughout the planet’s coastal regions.

Not only does the new ocean bathymetry information overturn geology’s erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm, it also affords a better perception of our past. In particular, the maps allow us to resolve the problem of Atlantis.

In Critias, Plato describes the Atlantis canal system:

It was rectangular, and for the most part straight and oblong…. It was excavated to the depth of a hundred feet, and its breadth was a stadium [equivalent to 185 meters] everywhere; it was carried round the whole of the plain, and was ten thousand stadia in length…. The depth and width and length of this ditch were incredible and gave the impression that such a work, in addition to so many other works, could hardly have been wrought by the hand of man. It received the streams which came down from the mountains, and winding round the plain, and touching the city at various points, was there left off into the sea…. From above, likewise, straight canals of a hundred feet in width were cut in the plain, and again let off into the ditch toward the sea; these canals were at intervals of a hundred stadia, …cutting transverse passages from one canal into another, and to the city.

Figure 3 is a NOAA map, centered at 24.4°W, 31.3°N, that shows the remnants of the Atlantis canal system. Let us compare it to Plato’s description. First, we note that the canals were straight and formed rectangular sections. The canal perimeter measures approximately 165 km east to west and 120 km north to south, so it was immense. In addition, the canals were sufficiently deep and wide to be discerned by modern instruments. The water source might have been the highland region to the west, which is the eastern extent of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. We can see that the interlocking transverse canals were mostly at right angles and that the system might have drained to the northeast where we find a drainage channel. The distance between the canals varies, but the span between two major east-west canals, identified by the red arrow on Figure 3, measures 15 km, which equates to approximately 85 stadia (assuming that 5.666 stadia equal 1 km). Thus, Plato’s description of the distance between canals is close to what we observe.

Atlantis map with superimposed arrowFigure 3. NOAA map (public domain) of a portion of the Madeira Abyssal Plain with a superimposed arrow that is 15 km in length.

To determine the overall length of the canals, we can overlay straight line segments, as shown on Figure 4. We take those segments, lay them end to end, and convert their distance in kilometers to stadia. Doing so reveals: the length of the canal system is 1,775 km, which translates to 9,600 stadia, a number within 4% of Plato’s description.

Atlantis map with superimposed line segments for length calcFigure 4. Same map as Fig. 3, with overlain lines.

The blue star on Figure 5 (top and bottom) depicts the same map location. It is approximately 1,750 km west-southwest of the Strait of Gibraltar near the Canary Islands, 750 km south of the Azores, and 650 km nearly due west of Madeira. That is, the canals are found where prehistorians believe Atlantis existed.

Atlantis map with superimposed stars for location identificationFigure 5. To convey the location of the submerged canal system, the blue star in each NOAA map is in the identical location.

To carve such an extensive canal system implies that the Atlanteans were master stone masons. How they achieved such a feat is open to speculation. Yet, however they were created, conservation of mass should lead us to wonder: what did they do with the excavated materials? Could they have stacked them into pyramids?

In Timaeus, Plato describes Atlantis’ fate:

At a later time there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence, and in a single dreadful day and night all your fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis was similarly swallowed up by the sea and vanished.”

The Deluge towards its close Shaw 1813 public domain

The incredible earthquakes that Plato recounts would have been induced by the immense cosmic impact that delivered the flood, described below. Soon after the impact, the newly introduced floodwaters coursed their way around the planet and into low-lying regions such as the Madeira Abyssal Plain where Atlantis was buried (and its canals preserved) by the worldwide floodwaters.

Such a volume of water so as to add 3+ km to abyssal regions could not be stored at Earth’s poles – the atmosphere only extends so far. Thus, the source must be cosmic, and this brings us to the Younger-Dryas event wherein geologists recognize incredible ecosystem changes induced by a cosmic impact roughly 13,000 years before present. They have yet to identify the impact site, though they presume that some comet struck an ice sheet somewhere in North America and projected chunks several hundred to more than a thousand miles (and outside the atmosphere!) thereby creating the Carolina Bays and other craters found in North America. If the impact was predominantly comet ice (H2O) on North American ice sheet (H2O), then how could this hypothetical impact create any nanodiamonds (C), let alone a worldwide layer? Furthermore, such a forceful impact would have created a crater, no? And since the impact was only 13,000 years before present, then the crater could not have eroded away. Well, then, where is it?! (Answer: not in North America.)

Interestingly, but as yet unrecognized by geologists, thousands of similar impact craters are found along the entire length of South America (a list of crater locations is found in the appendix of my recently published paper). Example craters from southern Argentina are shown on Figure 6. Note that many of the craters have a NNW-SSE orientation. This indicates the overflight direction of the object from which they fragmented.

SA impact cratersFigure 6. Example ice impact craters from southern Argentina that were created by IO fragments as it neared impact. Because of the IO’s overflight direction, the ice impact craters are predominantly oriented NNW-SSE.

I knew to look for ice chunk-created impact craters in South America because I had located the flood-inducing impact site. It is found in the Southern Ocean south of Madagascar and north of Antarctica, and it is shown on Figure 7 (top) along with a superimposed diameter that measures approximately 2500 km. The image at the bottom of Figure 7 is a magnetic anomaly overlay shown from the same perspective as the image above it.

Impact site two images 14Oct2019Figure 7. Identical perspectives of the IO impact site in the Southern Ocean include: (top) bathymetry image with a superimposed diameter that measures 2500 km; and (bottom) a magnetic anomaly overlay. Note the parallel central scrapes, scoured by the IO’s solid core, that are perpendicular to the black diameter segment (top) and corroborated by a red band (bottom). To the northwest of the impact site is South Africa (upper left), and to its south (below) is Antarctica (each land mass is labeled, though somewhat difficult to discern).

The parallel central scrapes interior to the impact site delineate a trough carved by the solid impacting object (IO) nucleus; this nucleus also served as the gravitational attractor in the Oort Cloud where the IO formed. The trough indicates the direction of travel taken by the IO, and back-propagating its direction indicates to us that the object overflew North America and South America immediately prior to impact. Along the way its ice fragments rained down and created the many craters that we can find on the new maps.

Minerals and other debris delivered by the IO are found in deposit mounds interior to the crescent. In addition, IO debris was strewn up to 1500 km to the northeast through the crescent gap by impact velocities. We can identify the extent of the debris field in the magnetic anomaly overlay on Fig. 7 (bottom). The gap in the crescent was caused by IO fragmentation on its Earth approach.

Among its many names, the IO is known in various cultures as Phaeton, Set, and Satan, and it was one of a class of objects from which smaller comets are but fragments. It was loosely packed due to small gravitational accelerations induced by its dense nucleus as the object formed in the Oort Cloud, far from gravitational effects from our sun and other stars. The IO’s loosely packed nature likens its Earth-impact to a huge, porous ice-ball – with a rock in the middle – hitting a brick wall. We should note that the IO was not sufficiently massive to have its own atmosphere.

We know about comet composition from NASA’s Deep Impact mission, so we can estimate the volume of water delivered by the IO’s melted ice. From the IO’s radius, we can calculate the volume of water it contained, and, once we have that number, we divide it by the oceans’ surface area. This calculation yields average depth, which in this case comes out to be a bit more than three kilometers (two miles).

The addition of this nearly incomprehensible amount of water quickly and irreversibly changed the Earth ecosystem. The IO’s waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the abyss upward – they did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. In addition, the IO’s massive, high-velocity, ice-on-earth impact created the ubiquitous nano-diamond layer, and its ecological and geological influences are the known Younger-Dryas effects.

From an anthropological and historical context, we should recognize that the waters nearly killed our species. Human survivors were evicted from their natural environment by the flood, and having to adapt to a new Earth ecosystem changed their nature; they and their descendants struggle to survive. In the ensuing millennia, nomadic humans sought habitable regions as the Earth transformed from its pre-flood state to the present ecosystem for which humans remain ill-adapted. It is vital to note: our survival necessitates environmental abuses as we seek requisite food, shelter, and warmth.

Because Google Maps/Earth help us to identify and correct an historic, far-reaching scientific blunder, their new information is equivalent to Galileo’s telescope: each observational tool revealed data that led to overturning incorrect scientific paradigms (geocentrism, “no flood, ever”). We might consider that a universal and correct understanding of what happened to us and our planet 12,800 years ago could enhance international cooperation and efforts to ensure our continued survival.

Finally, two items: (1) geology needs to recognize the indisputable error that has adversely affected the most recent 200 years of science, particularly anthropology, as highlighted in my recent paper, “The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary“; (2) validation of this finding will occur when remnants of pre-flood human activity are discovered in the deep abyss.

About (2): I have written to several wealthy explorers who own and operate deep-diving equipment. My missives have suggested several locations in the Atlantis region – not only the canals, but likely pyramid locations, too. It is only a matter of time until one of these entrepreneurs undertakes the mission. Any help in connecting me to an interested party would be greatly appreciated!

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

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

Interestingly, impact remnants have been found in Chile and, more recently, under two miles of water off the central coast of California. All the reported impacts were caused fragments from the IO moments before its impact in the Southern Ocean.

Lemuria (Mu)

A few items regarding Lemuria (Mu):

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

Mu and the Worldwide Flood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Michael Jaye, PhD

1. Recently sent email:

Dear Profs _________,

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

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

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

Impact site three views

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

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

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

Submerged drainage examples from around planet 8Jan2018

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

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

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

Western Med from paper

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

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

Lost Continent of Mu by Churchward

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

Figure6 blog

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

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

DNA heat map

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

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

Cruise Report

From the voyage report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Destruction of Mu Water on gathering

The Destruction of Mu waves volcanoes buildings in collaps

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

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

Monterey Califonia coastal region with arrow ids

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

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

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

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

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

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

It forever changed the planet.