Letter to the Editors, Journal of Geology

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

To the editors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Michael Jaye, PhD

Conversation with an author of “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ∼12,800 Years Ago”

I mentioned in my previous post that I sent an email with an attached .pdf to as many of authors as possible of the papers mentioned in the title (above, accessible here). Since then I’ve had an ongoing conversation with one co-author, and it is copied below.

Co-author’s reply:

“Nanodiamonds resulting from comet on ice sheet impact is not my argument

I am not insisting that a comet impacted the Laurentide ice sheet and generated nanodiamonds.

I don’t really work with nanodiamonds. I know that they can form during the activated charcoal process in industry under high temp/low oxygen conditions.

Comets are dirty ice so perhaps there is some carbon,  Apparently there is CO2 ice

https://www.space.com/53-comets-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html

In my view, we do not know if it was a comet or some other impactor.  I do know from my own research that there was a thermal pulse, enough to melt quartz. Much of the energy from this pulse would have gone into converting ice to meltwater.

The likely drop in temperature around 12,900 years ago would be due

  1. nuclear winter from the soot and dust in the atmosphere blocking the sun for up to a year AND
  2.  the freshwater pulse (meltwater from the ice sheet)  into the Atlantic  freezing over the North Atlantic and stopping the Thermohaline cycle

I don’t think our paper says anything about no flood ever.   

We know there was Meltwater pulse 1A around 12,900 years ago, likely from a catastrophically melting Laurentide Ice Sheet.

In addition, sea level rose about 400 feet to its present day level.  This would have drowned many shorelines worldwide.  There are so many archaeological and paleontological sites underwater now.

My areas of research are <omitted to preserve author’s anonymity>.

I have used geochemistry, charcoal, pollen, macrofossils and other things found in lake sediments for reconstruction of past environments.

I hope this is helpful.”

 

My reply:

Thank you for the note. I appreciate it. However, I wonder: what of the other authors, particularly the geologists? I have not heard from any of them.

To the matter at hand:

–        Your paper identifies effects caused by a cosmic impact 12,800 ybp. However, it fails to identify the most important effect, the worldwide flood.

–        Your paper does not identify the impact site, something I accomplished in my letter.

–        The Southern Ocean impact site accounts for all effects cited in your paper, as well as the flood.

–        The massive IO impact would have created an incredible dust cloud. However, the melting of the IO-introduced ice would have been the proximate cause of the temperature drop at that time.

–        As stated in my letter, the sea level rise delivered by the IO’s melted ice was more than two miles.

About the supposed 400’ sea level rise you mention:

–        As the IO-introduced waters flooded the planet from the abyss upward, there would have been a significant pause in the sea level rise as the Med flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar.

–        Survivors around the planet would have enjoyed a respite from their upward flight as the Med filled, which is why we find their artifacts at a depth slightly above the Strait’s water-passing elevation.

–        Once the Med filled, the newly introduced waters continued their rise to the point that we encounter them now (modern sea level). Thus, the submerged artifacts are at depths attainable by divers.

–        Remnants of early human activity will be found in the deep abyss. As an archaeologist, then you might consider how the fates of Lemuria (Mu) and Atlantis fit into the worldwide flood. These remnants are at depths attainable only by sophisticated equipment (about which: are you related to <name redacted to preserve anonymity>?).

That you cite the supposed sea level rise and attribute it to melting ice caps means that you overlooked the most important consequence to all that is associated with the matter at hand: all of modern science, beliefs, and worldviews are adversely affected by geology’s “no flood, ever” error.

My interest in this matter began while I was on the NPS faculty in Monterey, CA, just as Google Earth (and Maps) were made available. When I saw Monterey Canyon, and then when I read geologists’ explanations for its formation, I was inspired to investigate why it is that we scientists believe that there was never a flood. And that led me to Sedgwick and the history of the “no flood, ever” belief. What I found: “no flood, ever” is indisputably wrong. Because it is wrong, and because all geology and associated sciences follow from it, then we have a very, very big problem.

Unearthing geology’s error allows this comparison: Google Earth the historical equivalent of Galileo’s telescope, for each ‘device’ provided data that overturned significant scientific errors. Related: geologists have been fitting data to theory, which, per Kuhn, is anti-science or fantasy.

For most of the past decade, I’ve been trying to get geologists to recognize the error upon which rests their “science.” What I’ve found: as soon as “flood” is mentioned, great prejudice and condescension follow, something profoundly ironic, for the geologists are clinging to their ‘no flood’ belief as though it were religious dogma. That they cannot understand the error and its consequences is simply incomprehensible.

Thus, I am justified in wondering, how does one break geology’s erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm?

 

Author’s reply:

“Why do you expect a response from all 30 co-authors?

Our paper focused on biomass burning, not flooding.  There has to be some focus and scope to any given paper.

Your idea of an impact crater in Antarctica does not hold up for at least the reason I already told you. No extinctions in Africa.  Do you see evidence of late glacial fire in Africa?  Have you taken marine cores and studied them for your hypothesized impact site?  if not, then you are engaging in speculation.  Now you must collect some data.”

 

To which I replied:

– I expected something from the geologist authors due to the historic nature of the matter: their “science” is based on an error.

– There were extensive forests in pre-flood Africa (e.g. https://www.rt.com/news/321574-africa-sahara-underground-river/). It is not a stretch to say that they burned soon after the floodwaters established the new, post-flood ecosystem.

– Careful: no one has any idea how many species became extinct due to the worldwide flood. See Fig 7.

– The impact was not in Antarctica but rather in what is now the Southern Ocean.

– Had I the resources, then I would explore for the remnants of human activity in the deep abyss. I discussed finding such remnants – as well as cores taken from within the impact crescent (obtained nearly 50 years ago) whose contents include minerals consistent with known comet composition – in this talk I gave to the Explorers Club in NYC about three years ago: https://vimeo.com/126026401.

– Google’s maps are data.

– I have exercised the scientific method based on that (new) data.

– The maps led me to uncover the biggest error in the history of science, one that causes you, your colleagues, and all of science to *speculate* on the cause of the YD impact and to miss the impact’s primary effect, the worldwide flood.

– Perhaps one day you will recognize the error and its consequences.

Recent Younger Dryas impact paper misses one vitally important effect, the worldwide flood; here is my correspondence with its authors, many from the Comet Research Group

The papers, “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ~12,800 Years Ago” (Part I. Ice Cores and Glaciers; and Part II. Lake, Marine, and Terrestrial Sediments), were both recently published by The Journal of Geography. The papers, discussed in this news article, show that a massive impact 12,800 years before present led to massive wildfires and a short glacial period, among other effects. Many of the papers’ authors are from the Comet Research Group.

The paper fails to identify the impact site, as well as its most important and lasting effect, the worldwide flood. I saw this as an opportunity to convey my findings and begin correcting geology’s profound, “no flood, ever” error. So I sent to the authors the following email and attachment (caveat – as many authors as possible, since several email addresses were either outdated or inaccessible):

Here is my introductory email to the authors:

“Congratulations on your latest publications. It is wonderful work.

However, one wonders: where are the remnants of the massive impact? I answer that question, and I identfiy another important effect caused by the impact, in the attached .pdf

I respectfully request an opportunity to address the Comet Research Group about the attachment, as well as another Earth-transforming event that took place ~65 million ybp.

Regards,

Michael Jaye, PhD”

The contents of the email’s .pdf attachment (Letter to YD Impact authors 24Feb2018.pdf) follow:

Your recent publications conclude that a massive impact 12,800 ybp created the Younger Dryas ecosystem changes, among other effects. However, your paper does not identify the impact site, something accomplished immediately, below. In addition, I identify a major impact-induced effect not mentioned in your papers.

The remnants of the impacting object (IO) are found in the Southern Ocean southeast of South Africa, north of Antarctica, and south of Madagascar; the impact center is in the vicinity of 57°S, 53°E. Figure 1 shows the impact site.

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

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

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

The central trough and the impact crescent indicate that the IO had a dense, solid core that was surrounded by a porous and fragile outer layer as depicted on Figure 3.  Having formed in the Oort Cloud, far from gravitational effects from our Sun and other stars, the IO was loosely packed (as are its fragments that we call comets) due to small gravitational accelerations induced by its dense nucleus. The IO’s outer layer was consistent with known comet composition: porous, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank.” (A’Hearn et al. 2005)

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

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

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

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

Clearly, the South American impacts could not have been created by an ice sheet impact in North America. Instead, the impact craters in North America (e.g. Carolina Bays) and South America were created by IO ice fragments that rained down along the IO’s path just prior to impact. Note the NNW to SSE orientation in most of the SA craters – it indicates the overflight direction of the IO immediately prior to impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geologists believe that these structures were carved by subsurface processes because their science holds that there was never a worldwide flood. Their “no flood, ever” paradigm has a history that is unknown to most modern geologists. It goes like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quick inundation preserved the former drainages that the new maps reveal. Coupled with the vast new waters and ensuing changes to weather patterns, the IO induced irreversible ecosystem and climatic changes that are known as the YD event. For instance, vast, forested regions would become desiccated by the changes, and they would burn soon after the event.

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

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

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

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

Indeed: similar flood accounts are found in cultures throughout the planet because it wholly transformed the planet; we struggle to survive because we are ill-adapted to the post-flood ecosystem.

Yet we know none of this because of geology’s error.

But there is hope: your work supports correcting geology’s “no flood, ever” paradigm, the most profound error in the history of science – the blunder adversely affects anthropology, geology, and our understanding of Earth and human history…. It is no small mistake.

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

Appendix

Listed on the table, below, are latitude-longitude coordinates for some ice fragment impact craters along the IO approach path. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to illustrate the multitude of craters created by IO ejecta. The latitude-longitude pairs are provided so that you might discover them – and others – using Google Earth. The term “eye” refers to the suggested altitude from which to begin crater investigation. The “Comments” describe locations and some features intended to pique interest. The progression of impacts listed on the table moves the viewer from north to south.

Impact CoordinatesEyeComments

Northern Latitudes

40.6341N 98.0162W      7,800   ft            Nebraska; might be difficult to discern among crop circles

40.4670N 98.0381W      17,000 ft            Nebraska

39.1658N 75.8462W      3,500    ft            Maryland

34.8719N 79.0371W      46,600  ft            South Carolina, swarm of elliptical craters

34.8370N 79.1854W      20.3       mi          South Carolina, elliptical craters

32.8604N 82.0342W      12.5       mi          Georgia

33.4013N 104.0641W    40,600 ft            New Mexico

34.6756N 103.9874W    37,500  ft            New Mexico, swarm

34.8448N 104.1021W    45,000  ft            New Mexico, swarm

32.2140N 102.4217W    30,600  ft            Texas, swarm with one crater in someone’s backyard

32.5304N 100.6679W    17.5       mi          Texas

26.3530N 97.7112W      28,300  ft            Mexico

25.7206N 97.3893W      23.7       mi          Mexico

20.3999N 87.4530W      37,800  ft            Mexico; impact string visible at large view scale, running SW-NE

20.0234N 87.5228W      40          mi          Mexico, swarm of large impact craters; some carved shoreline

19.1279N 87.8039W      16          mi          Mexico, swarm

18.3340N 88.2799W      13          mi          Mexico

14.4011N 83.3440W      13,000  ft            Mexico

 

Southern Latitudes

6.1710S  80.7380W       28,500  ft            Peru; equatorial latitude impact crater

10.6985S 76.3237W       28.0       mi          Peru; two elongated impacts in mountainous region

22.8193S 66.8091W       47,000  ft            Argentina; swarm

34.8117S 61.6309W       20          mi          Argentina

35.0281S 62.4160W       31,000  ft            Argentina

35.8648S 62.3402W       32,000  ft            Argentina; impact swarm

37.4198S 58.1596W       16,000  ft            Argentina

37.6990S 61.0177W       18          mi          Argentina; swarm

41.2603S 68.0857W       13.5       mi          Argentina; check out the drainage runoff patterns from ice melt

41.3549S 67.7267W       16          mi          Argentina; swarm

45.1512S 70.6540W       24          mi          Argentina; small swarm, some drainages observable

47.8645S 71.4748W       25          mi          Argentina; impact crater now a lake; swarm in vicinity

50.5908S 70.3878W       37          mi          Argentina; large swarm

51.5756S 70.0404W       30          mi          Argentina; large swarm

51.9179S 70.0099W       30          mi          Argentina (barely); large swarm

51.7803S 59.1534W       28,000  ft            Falkland Islands

53.6401S 68.2996W       40          mi          Argentina; swarm of large craters

55.8726S 67.8791W       7000      ft            Tierra del Fuego; swarm

References

A’Hearn, M.F., M.J.S. Belton, W.A. Delamere, J. Kissel, K.P. Klaasen, L.A. McFadden, K.J. Meech, H.J. Melosh, P.H. Schultz, J.M. Sunshine, P.C. Thomas, J. Veverka, D.K. Yeomans, M.W. Baca, I. Busko, C.J. Crockett, S.M. Collins, M. Desnoyer, C.A. Eberhardy, C.M. Ernst, T.L. Farnham, L. Feaga, O. Groussin, D. Hampton, S.I. Ipatov, J.-Y. Li, D. Lindler, C.M. Lisse, N. Mastrodemos, W.M. Owen Jr., J.E. Richardson, D.D. Wellnitz, and R.L. White. 2005. Deep Impact: Excavating comet Tempel 1. Science (310) 5746: 258–264.

Allan, D.S. and J.B. Delair. 1997. Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. Rochester, Vermont: Bear and Company. Originally published as When the Earth Nearly Died (Bath, England: Gateway Books, 1995).

Fildani, A. and W.R. Normark. 2004. Late Quaternary evolution of channel and lobe complexes of Monterey Fan. Marine Geology 206 (1–4): 199–223.

Firestone, R.B., A. West, J.P. Kennett, L. Becker, T.E. Bunch, Z.S. Revay, P.H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D.J. Kennett, J.M. Erlandson, O.J. Dickenson, A.C. Goodyear, R.S. Harris, G.A. Howard, J.B. Kloosterman, P.Lechler, P.A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S.S. Que Hee, A.R. Smith, A. Stich, W.Topping, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach. 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions of the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:16016-16021.

Kennett J.P., D.J. Kennett, B.J. Culleton, J.E.A. Tortosa, J.L. Bischoff, T.E. Bunch, I.R. Daniel Jr., J.M. Erlandson, D. Ferraro, R.B. Firestone, A.C. Goodyear, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.R. Johnson, J.F. Jordá Pardo, D.R. Kimbel, M.A. LeCompte, N.H. Lopinot, W.C. Mahaney, A.M.T. Moore, C.R. Moore, J.H. Ray, T.W. Stafford Jr., K.B. Tankersley, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach, and A. West. 2015. Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America 112 (32): E4344–E4353.

Kerr, R.A. 2005. Deep Impact finds a flying snowbank of a comet. Science (309) 5741: 1667.

Kinzie C.R., S.S. Que Hee, A. Stich, K.A. Tague, C. Mercer, J.J. Razink, D.J. Kennett, P.S. DeCarli, T.E. Bunch, J.H. Wittke, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.L. Bischoff, A.C. Goodyear, K.B. Tankersley, D.R. Kimbel, B.J. Culleton, J.M. Erlandson, T.W. Stafford, J.B. Kloosterman, A.M.T. Moore, R.B. Firestone, J.E. Aura Tortosa, J.F. Jordá Pardo, A. West, J.P.

Kennett, and W.S. Wolbach. 2014. Nanodiamond-rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact at 12,800 Cal BP. The Journal of Geology 122 (5):
475–506.

Korhonen J.V., J.D. Fairhead, M. Hamoudi, K. Hemant, V. Lesur, M. Mandea, S. Maus, M. Purucker, D. Ravat, T. Sazonova, and E. Thebault. 2007. Magnetic Anomaly Map of the World,  1st ed., Commission for the Geological Map of the World, Paris, France.

Mamajek, E.E., S.A. Barenfeld, V.D. Ivanov, A.Y. Kniazev, P. Vaisanen, Y. Beletsky, and H.M.J. Boffin. 2015. The closest known flyby of a star to the solar system. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 800 (1): L17.

Rackham, H. (transl). 1938. Pliny the Elder Natural History (London); vol ii, p 91.

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

Sunshine J.M., O. Groussin, P.H. Schultz, M.F. A’Hearn, L.M. Feaga, T.L. Farnham, and K.P. Klaasen. 2007. The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1. Icarus 190 (2): 284–294.

Sweatman S.B., D. Tsikritsis. 2017. Decoding Göbekli Tepe with archaeoastronomy: What does the fox say? Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17(1): 233-250.

Zamora, A. 2017. A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays. Geomorphology 282:209-216.

 

Two Questions for Geologists (Answers Provided)

6 Feb 2018

Geologists are getting closer to recognizing that there was a worldwide flood. This recent article mentions that geologists are certain that there was a massive impact 12,800 years before present. Geologists credit the impact with creating the planet’s ubiquitous nanodiamond layer (caused by high velocities at impact), as well as the Younger Dryas (YD) ecosystem changes. In addition, the papers mentioned in the article (links: here and here) claim that the impact caused widespread fires. (Note: it is unlikely that the impact itself caused immediate fires; rather, the incredible ecosystem changes would transform once forested regions into desiccated deserts. A bolt of lightning or volcanic ash, and, voila: widespread fires.)

Interestingly, neither of the scientific papers upon which the Universe Today article rests identifies the impact site. Certainly, it must have been a massive and high-energy impact so as to cause the distribution of nanodiamonds around the planet, as well as the associated YD ecosystem changes, fires, etc.

Thus, two questions for geologists:

  1. Where are the impact remnants?
  2. Since comets are predominantly water, then what of the melted ice? Where did all the water go?

Answers:

  1. The impact site is in the Southern Ocean, southeast of South Africa and SSE of Madagascar. The impact crescent in the upper image, below, measures approx. 1500 miles in diameter:

Impact and mag anomaly overlay 8Jan2018

[The lower of the two images is a magnetic anomaly map that corroborates that the object delivered minerals (such as iron and platinum) and other matter besides ice. In addition, the magnetic anomaly overlay shows that impact velocities scattered such materials nearly a thousand miles through the impact crescent’s gap (the impacting object, fragile as its comet fragments, was beginning to disintegrate at impact).​ In addition, the force of the impact is likely to have caused worldwide volcanic activity, which, along with lightning, would have served to initiate forest fires.]

  1. The waters flooded the planet, discussed here and here, as well as in my book.

 

The bottom line: there was a worldwide flood. To think otherwise is, well, unscientific.

About which: identification and discussion of geology’s historic error, as well as other evidence and analysis regarding the worldwide flood, are found in the articles, below. They are arranged in a manner so as to take the reader from the error’s commission to the data and analysis that revealed it:

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

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

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

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

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

Expedition Atlantis

10 Jan 2018

Google Earth ocean bathymetry data lead us to overturn geology’s erroneous “no worldwide flood, ever” paradigm. Try telling that to a “lettered” geologist….

To end any argument and to irrefutably establish that there was, indeed, a worldwide flood, there is only one requirement whose results would be indisputable: discover pre-flood human activity in the deep abyss.

The most likely place to investigate: Atlantis.

Background

In Critias, one of Plato’s dialogues, he describes the Atlantis canal system, as follows:

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.

Analysis

Figure 1 is a NOAA map, centered at 24.4°W, 31.3°N, that shows the Atlantis canal system.

Atlantis map with superimposed arrowFigure 1. The canals of Atlantis are found in the Madeira Abyssal Plain. The center of the canal system is located near 24.4°W, 31.3°N. The red arrow measures 15 km or about 85 stadia (a bit less than 100 stadia as described by Plato).

The map allows us to compare the canals with 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, which leads one to wonder how long it must have taken to build. In addition, its canals were sufficiently deep and wide to be discerned by modern instruments. We can see that the interlocking transverse canals were mostly at right angles. The distance between the canals varies, but the span between two major east-west canals, identified by the red arrows on Figure 1, 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.

For perspective, the location of the Atlantis canal system is shown by blue stars on each map in Figure 2.

Atlantis map with superimposed stars for location identificationFigure 2. The blue star on each map indicates the location of the Atlantis canal system. The stars indicate that the canals are 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, Atlantis existed in the location that many prehistorians anticipated.

To determine the overall length of the canals, we can overlay straight line segments on the grid as shown on Figure 3. Then we can take those segments, lay them end to end, and convert their distance in kilometers to stadia. The length of the canal system is calculated to be 1,775 km, which translates to nearly 9,600 stadia, a number that is within 4% of Plato’s description!

Atlantis map with superimposed line segments for length calcFigure 3. By overlaying straight lines on the canals of Atlantis, we can approximate its total length in kilometers, then convert that to stadia.

Atlantis’ fate is described in Plato’s Timaeus:

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 incredible earthquakes that Plato recounts would have been induced by the immense cosmic impact (identified in earlier posts). Soon thereafter the newly introduced floodwaters coursed their way around the planet from the impact area and into low-lying regions such as the Madeira Abyssal Plain where Atlantis existed.

Plato’s description, coupled with the new map data, allows us to resolve the problem of Atlantis: it was buried by the worldwide floodwaters.

It’s was a big city. So where  would we dive to have a good chance of obtaining evidence?

Given the corroboration between Plato’s account and the map data, we can be confident that investigating the region would be fruitful to forever establishing that there was a worldwide flood.

The extensive canal system indicates that the Atlanteans must have been excellent masons. What might they have done with the excavated materials? Perhaps they built pyramids … and big ones at that. Suspected pyramid locations are found encircled on Figure 4.

Atlantis map with superimposed circles for locations of interestFigure 4. The circled locations might be very large pyramids built by Atlantean stonemasons.

One of the pyramids at Abusir, superimposed on Figure 5, is similar to the shape of the object found in the bold circle on Figure 4.

Atlantis map with superimposed Abusir pyramidFigure 5. One of the pyramids at Abusir is superimposed beneath a suspected pyramid that appears to be of similar shape. This suspected pyramid is found between two east-west running canals that once fed into Atlantis.

Thus, the circled locations represent the most likely starting locations from which to acquire remnants of Atlantis. [That said, the shape of the suspected pyramid in the bold circle on Figure 4, coupled with its intriguing location between two east-west canals (entrance to the city?), then I would rank this location as the first to investigate.]

The latitude-longitude grids and depths for circled locations, from west to east, are:

Latitude              Longitude           Depth

31.673N              24.109W             5380m (17654 ft)

31.266N              23.616W             5243m (17200 ft)

31.258N              22.992W             4951m (16243 ft)

31.201N              22.572W             5236m (17180 ft)

The depths are a bit more than three miles below sea level. Therefore, the ship tasked with investigating the remnants must be able to hold its location, and it must be able to transport and deploy a submersible device (with illumination, camera, and recording equipment), and this device must be able to withstand such pressures as would be found at three miles below sea level.

I suspect that there exists such a vessel with the requisite equipment. How much it would cost to conduct this excursion is unknown to me at this time. How to go about laying it on is also unknown.

But it would be worth it!

PS – I presented “Resolving the Problem of Atlantis” to the Explorers Club in New York City in April 2015. If interested, then it might be viewed here.

 

A submission to anthropologists

8 Jan 2018

I submitted the article, below, to SAPIENS on 23 Dec 2017. SAPIENS is an on-line journal for anthropologists. My thought in submitting a paper to them: their branch of science is most affected by geology’s error (besides geology itself).

The editors rejected it today, stating, “Thank you very much indeed for sending in your submission. While we really enjoyed considering your idea, the editors felt that it wasn’t quite right for us this time. We do often turn down good pitches with potential simply because they don’t suit our audience, tone, or focus at the moment.

We wish you the very best of luck with finding a good home for this piece.

Kind regards,

Chip

Chip Colwell, PhD

Editor-in-Chief, SAPIENS

 

Here is the rejected article:

Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth, and Revolutionizing Anthropology

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

In his 1831 president’s address to the Geological Society of London, Adam Sedgwick renounced his belief in a worldwide flood. He stated, in part: “The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation.” (Sedgwick 1831)

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

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

Uncritical? Indeed: the early geologists’ “no flood, ever” conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick and his peers instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. Whereas it is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick and the other early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that they could not observe; they assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning. The error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were inundated by some event, something that Google Maps data convey (examples shown on Figure 1).

Submerged drainage examples from around planet 8Jan2018Figure 1. Submerged drainages now discernible in Google Earth include (clockwise from upper left): coastal California, the Gulf of Alaska, the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, and the Celtic Sea to the southwest of Ireland.

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

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

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

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).

Fig. 2 should transform anthropology. With the removal of so much water, the atmosphere would have covered the former abyss. Thus, the dark tan areas on Fig. 2 experienced increased atmospheric pressure, which would have led to higher temperatures (ideal gas law). Humans evolved in these regions; we are furless as a consequence. We find evidence of pre-flood human activity nearly exclusively in tropical latitudes because, at more than 3 kilometers (two miles) above the former sea level, most of the yellow regions on Fig. 2 were too cold for human habitation.

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

Our only task, then, is to identify the source of so much water. It should be obvious that such a volume as to cover the submerged structures in more than two miles could not be stored at Earth’s poles; 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.(Firestone et al. 2007, Kennett et al. 2015) They have yet to find the cosmic impact, 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.(Zamora 2017) Such a forceful impact would have created a crater, no? 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 – we can identify them on Google Earth. Some are shown on Figure 3; a list of example craters found in North America and South America is provided in the post script, below.

Figure4 blogFigure 3. Several hundred IO fragment-created craters of various sizes are shown in this map. The long axes of the larger craters measure approximately one kilometer whereas the smaller craters are one-tenth that size.

I knew to look for ice chunk-created impact craters in South America because I had located the flood-inducing impact site in the Southern Ocean. It is shown on Figure 4. Note what appear to be parallel central scrapes. They are the sides of a lengthy trough that was carved by the solid, central nucleus of the impacting object (IO) immediately after it hit. This 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.

Impact and mag anomaly overlay 8Jan2018Figure 4. The IO impact, shown in Google Earth (top) along with its magnetic anomaly overlay (bottom) is found in the Southern Ocean south of Madagascar and north of Antarctica. The parallel central scrapes delineate the trough carved by its solid nucleus that served as the gravitational attractor in the Oort Cloud where the IO formed. Minerals and other debris delivered by the IO are found in deposit mounds interior to the crescent. The gap in the crescent was caused by IO fragmentation on its Earth approach; impact velocities and associated forces strew minerals and other debris nearly 1000 miles to the northeast through the gap, evident in the magnetic anomaly overlay.

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 (as are its fragments that we call comets) 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 impact crescent measures roughly 2500 km (~1500 miles) in diameter, and the width of its central trough measures somewhat less than 100 km (~60 miles) in diameter. 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 know about comet composition from NASA’s Deep Impact mission (A’Hearn et al. 2005, Wilson 2005), and 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 surface area of the oceans. This calculation yields average depth, which in this case comes out to be a bit more than two miles. (Jaye 2017) This is a nearly incomprehensible amount of water, and its addition to the Earth ecosystem forever changed the planet. 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 impact created the recently discovered nano-diamond layer (Kinzie et al. 2014), and its ecological influences are known as the Younger-Dryas effects. The IO’s waters ushered in a new geologic era that I call the Post-Diluvian.

The waters nearly killed our species. Naked human survivors were evicted from their natural environment by the flood, and having to adapt to a new environment changed their nature; they and their ancestors 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 human survivors are maladapted. In the context that humans are a maladapted, surviving species: modern, complex social structures and our environmental abuse are survival mechanisms; we would be extinct were it not for our brains.

Yet we recognize none of this because of geology’s historic error. “No flood, ever” is an immense mistake: two branches of science, geology and anthropology, are fundamentally incorrect. This renders Google Earth as the historic equivalent to Galileo’s telescope – each ‘device’ revealed data that led to overturning incorrect scientific paradigms.

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

 

Bibliography

A’Hearn, M.F., M.J.S. Belton, W.A. Delamere, J. Kissel, K.P. Klaasen, L.A. McFadden, K.J. Meech, H.J. Melosh, P.H. Schultz, J.M. Sunshine, P.C. Thomas, J. Veverka, D.K. Yeomans, M.W. Baca, I. Busko, C.J. Crockett, S.M. Collins, M. Desnoyer, C.A. Eberhardy, C.M. Ernst, T.L. Farnham, L. Feaga, O. Groussin, D. Hampton, S.I. Ipatov, J.-Y. Li, D. Lindler, C.M. Lisse, N. Mastrodemos, W.M. Owen Jr., J.E. Richardson, D.D. Wellnitz, and R.L. White. 2005. Deep Impact: Excavating comet Tempel 1. Science (310) 5746: 258–264.

Firestone, R.B., A. West, J.P. Kennett, L. Becker, T.E. Bunch, Z.S. Revay, P.H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D.J. Kennett, J.M. Erlandson, O.J. Dickenson, A.C. Goodyear, R.S. Harris, G.A. Howard, J.B. Kloosterman, P.Lechler, P.A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S.S. Que Hee, A.R. Smith, A. Stich, W.Topping, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach. 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions of the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:16016-16021.

Jaye, M. 2017. The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Bloomington, IN: Archway Publishing.

Kennett J.P., D.J. Kennett, B.J. Culleton, J.E.A. Tortosa, J.L. Bischoff, T.E. Bunch, I.R. Daniel Jr., J.M. Erlandson, D. Ferraro, R.B. Firestone, A.C. Goodyear, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.R. Johnson, J.F. Jordá Pardo, D.R. Kimbel, M.A. LeCompte, N.H. Lopinot, W.C. Mahaney, A.M.T. Moore, C.R. Moore, J.H. Ray, T.W. Stafford Jr., K.B. Tankersley, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach, and A. West. 2015. Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (32): E4344–E4353.

Kinzie C.R., S.S. Que Hee, A. Stich, K.A. Tague, C. Mercer, J.J. Razink, D.J. Kennett, P.S. DeCarli, T.E. Bunch, J.H. Wittke, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.L. Bischoff, A.C. Goodyear, K.B. Tankersley, D.R. Kimbel, B.J. Culleton, J.M. Erlandson, T.W. Stafford, J.B. Kloosterman, A.M.T. Moore, R.B. Firestone, J.E. Aura Tortosa, J.F. Jordá Pardo, A. West, J.P. Kennett, and W.S. Wolbach. 2014. Nanodiamond-rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact at 12,800 Cal BP. The Journal of Geology 122 (5):475–506.

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

Wilson, E.K. 2005. An Icy Dustball in Outer Space. Chemical & Engineering News 83 (37): 12.

Zamora, A. 2017. A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays. Geomorphology 282:209-216.

Post Script

IO fragility can be inferred from an understanding of the small aggregating accelerations induced by its central core. Newton’s law of gravitation and his second law of motion allow us to determine IO-induced accelerations in the Oort Cloud. The acceleration of one object due to the mass of another is:

a = G * M/r^2

where: M is the mass of the attracting object, r is the distance to that object’s center, and G is the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.67*10^–11.

From this equation we can show that the acceleration of an object near the earth’s surface is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 (first set of calculations, below). From there we can compute the acceleration at the surface of a 50 km sphere composed of a very dense material. Then we add a porous ice-debris outer layer like that of the IO and calculate the acceleration at its outer surface.

Acceleration at Earth’s surface:

Radius: 6,380,000 meters
Volume: 1.0878E+21 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 5.98E+24 kg
Acceleration at surface: 9.799088059 m/sec^2               =  G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s core surface:

Radius: 50,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 2.87839E+18 kg
Acceleration at IO core surface: 0.076795361 m/sec^2   = G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s outer surface:

Radius: 1,250,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
mass, 1km^3 water: 1E+12 kg
H20 mass, outer layer: 1.28779E+21 kg
mineral mass, outer layer: 5497.31393 kg

a_combined mass core+shell: 0.198841398 m/sec^2    = G*[(H20+mineral mass, outer                                                                                                              layer) + core mass]/outerradius^2

IO’s acceleration, expressed as a fraction of Earth’s acceleration:

a_core/a_earthsurface = 0.007836991 = 0.70%
a_(combined mass core + shell)/a_earthsurface = 0.020291827 = 2%

Therefore, the IO’s small attracting accelerations in the Oort Cloud created a porous and fragile object that began to fall apart as it neared Earth impact. Hence the gap in the impact crescent, as well as the abundance of impact craters strewn along the IO’s broad and lengthy approach path. We get an idea of the IO’s approach from the impact trough that was carved by its dense nucleus: back-propagating the trough direction reveals the impact approach path. In doing so we find that the IO’s center of mass approached over west-central North America then western South America before crossing Chile and Argentina and flying over the Falklands. Listed on the table, below, are latitude-longitude coordinates for some ice fragment impact craters along the IO approach path. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to illustrate the multitude of craters created by IO ejecta. The latitude-longitude pairs are provided so that you might discover them – and others – using Google Earth. The term “eye” refers to the suggested altitude from which to begin crater investigation. The “Comments” describe locations and some features intended to pique interest. The progression of impacts listed on the table moves the viewer from north to south.

Impact Coordinates    Eye                 Comments

Northern Latitudes
40.6341N 98.0162W     7,800 ft       Nebraska; might be difficult to discern among crop circles
40.4670N 98.0381W     17,000 ft     Nebraska
39.1658N 75.8462W     3,500 ft       Maryland
34.8719N 79.0371W     46,600 ft     South Carolina, swarm of elliptical craters
34.8370N 79.1854W     20.3 mi       South Carolina, elliptical craters
32.8604N 82.0342W     12.5 mi       Georgia
33.4013N 104.0641W   40,600 ft     New Mexico
34.6756N 103.9874W   37,500 ft     New Mexico, swarm
34.8448N 104.1021W   45,000 ft     New Mexico, swarm
32.2140N 102.4217W   30,600 ft     Texas, swarm with one crater in someone’s backyard
32.5304N 100.6679W   17.5 mi        Texas
26.3530N 97.7112W     28,300 ft      Mexico
25.7206N 97.3893W     23.7 mi        Mexico
20.3999N 87.4530W     37,800 ft      Mexico; impact string visible at large view scale, running SW-NE
20.0234N 87.5228W     40 mi           Mexico, swarm of large impact craters; some carved shoreline
19.1279N 87.8039W     16 mi           Mexico, swarm
18.3340N 88.2799W     13 mi           Mexico
14.4011N 83.3440W     13,000 ft      Mexico

Southern Latitudes
6.1710S 80.7380W       28,500 ft       Peru; equatorial latitude impact crater
10.5931S 76.3234W     28.0 mi         Peru; impacts in mountainous region
22.8193S 66.8091W     47,000 ft       Argentina; swarm
34.8117S 61.6309W     20 mi             Argentina
35.0281S 62.4160W     31,000 ft       Argentina
35.8648S 62.3402W     32,000 ft       Argentina; impact swarm
37.6990S 61.0177W     18 mi             Argentina; swarm
41.2603S 68.0857W     13.5 mi          Argentina; check out the drainage runoff patterns from ice melt
41.3549S 67.7267W     16 mi             Argentina; swarm
45.1512S 70.6540W     24 mi             Argentina; small swarm, some drainages observable
50.5908S 70.3878W     37 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.5756S 70.0404W     30 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.9179S 70.0099W     30 mi             Argentina (barely); large swarm
51.7803S 59.1534W     28,000 ft        Falkland Islands
53.6401S 68.2996W     40 mi             Argentina; swarm of large craters

Scientific Paper: The Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact

6 Jan 2018

This morning I submitted to the Geological Society of London a paper titled, “The Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact and an Historic Error.” The paper is found, below.

In addition to submitting the paper through the journal’s web-based system, I also forwarded the paper to the two editors with whom I had a discussion about the Geological Society of London’s obligation to correct the historic error committed by its president, Adam Sedgwick, in 1831. You may recall that they refused to retract the error, despite its pervasiveness.

11 Jan 2018

Update: Andrew Carter, the journal’s chief editor, decided not to pursue the article not because of its content but because of its style. SMH.

It is important to note that Andrew’s decision does not reflect on the veracity of the paper, which is found below (modified slightly so that the figures appear to you in an appropriate place within the text, whereas in the submitted document the figures are included in separate files):

The Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact and an Historic Error

Abstract: This paper identifies the Younger Dryas (YD) cosmic impact site, and it discusses associated ecosystem effects. The findings correct a fundamental and historic error in geology.

To identify the Younger-Dryas (YD) impact and associated effects we must understand comets, and so we turn to NASA’s Deep Impact mission that probed comet Tempel 1 to determine its nature and composition. According to Deep Impact’s principal investigator, Dr. Michael A’Hearn, comets are porous objects, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank” (Wilson 2005). Though the object that struck the earth was not a comet, those comets that we observe are but tiny fragments of the type of object that did. Small comets like Tempel 1 are asymmetric, jagged, and non-spherical, all of which imply fragmentation. In addition, Deep Impact found no discernible, solid central nucleus in Tempel 1 (A’Hearn et al. 2005); such a dense nucleus would create spherical symmetry due to omni-directional amalgamating gravitational accelerations.

Other pertinent information comes from recent papers concluding that a cosmic impact roughly 12,800 years before present not only caused the YD effects (Firestone et al. 2007, Kennett et al. 2015) but also formed an associated layer of nanodiamonds found across most of the planet (Kinzie et al. 2014). Interestingly, none of the paper identifies the impact, something that we accomplish immediately.

The YD impact site and analysis 

The YD impact remnants are found in the Southern Ocean southeast of South Africa, north of Antarctica, and south of Madagascar; the sphere’s impact center is in the vicinity of 57°S, 53°E. Figure 1 shows three Google Earth views of the impact site from a common, fixed perspective roughly 7,000 km above sea level: the standard map image (top), a bathymetry overlay (middle), and a magnetic anomaly overlay (bottom, Korhonen et al. 2007). The mostly submerged remnant crater measures approximately 2,500 km in diameter, indicated by the superimposed line on Fig. 1 (top).

Figure1 blogFigure 1. Identical Google Earth perspectives of the YD cosmic impact site include: (top) the standard view with a superimposed diameter measuring 2,500 km; (middle) a bathymetry map depicting raised regions of IO-borne deposits with a superimposed circle identifying nucleus remnants (RGB color scale corresponds with highest to lowest elevations, respectively); and (bottom) overlay of magnetic anomalies, from Korhonen et al. (2007), that were created by the impact and its deposited minerals (RGB scale corresponds with the most to least intense anomalies, respectively). Magnetic anomalies extend approximately 1,500 km to the northeast through the “crescent” gap.

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

Figure2 blogFigure 2. Back-propagating the impact trough’s parallel central scrapes reveals the IO’s pre-impact flight path, which is indicated by the white arrow.

As depicted on Figure 3, the IO had a dense, solid core that was surrounded by a fragile outer layer. Having formed in the Oort Cloud, this outer layer was consistent with known comet composition. As the IO formed, gravitational accelerations induced by the solid inner core were less than 1% of Earth’s accelerations. Aggregations forming the IO’s outer shell of water-ice and debris made it more massive than its core, yet accelerations induced by the entire object were on the order of 2% of Earth’s (see Appendix A for the acceleration derivations). These comparatively small accelerations account for the IO being loosely packed, porous, and fragile; its gravitational accelerations were too small to act as a compressing mechanism. This substantiates A’Hearn et al’s characterization of comets as less strong than a snowbank. Thus, IO fragility accounts for impact effects being less damaging than what otherwise might be expected from a similarly sized yet solid object.

Figure3 blogFigure 3. The impacting object had a dense core surrounded by a layer composed of water ice, rocks, and minerals.

Impact craters found in North America (e.g. Carolina Bays) have been attributed to a presumed comet strike on an ice sheet somewhere in North America (Zamora 2017). But there are thousands of similar craters found along the north-south axis of South America, hundreds of which are shown on Figure 4 (a list of example craters from both North America and South America is found in Appendix B). The South American craters are more numerous and dense, and they cannot be accounted for by the phantom North American impact. Instead, the craters found in the Americas were created by IO fragments raining down along its broad, pre-impact Earth overflight path (Fig. 2).

Figure4 blogFigure 4. Several hundred IO fragment-created craters of various sizes are shown on this map, centered at 51.33°S, 69.30°W. The long axes of the larger craters measure approximately one km whereas the smaller craters are one-tenth that size.

Despite its delicate outer layers, the IO, with its impact forces, nonetheless shifted local topography along the western edge of the crescent by up to 150 km; terrain elongations are evident in the Google Earth images of the impact crescent’s western extent, shown on Figure 5.

Figure5 blogFigure 5. Impact forces displaced local topography in the western crescent region by approximately 150 km.

It is likely that the IO was displaced by a binary star system that passed through the Oort Cloud roughly 70,000 years before present (Mamajek et al. 2015), was captured by our sun’s gravitational field, and was then brought into Earth’s path. Upon impact, collisions and interactions between energetic IO-borne minerals and terrestrial materials created the YD nanodiamond layer, placing the impact approximately 13,000 years before present (Kinzie et al. 2014).

With a diameter of 2,500 km, the IO occupied a volume of 5.58*10^9 km^3. Given that it was composed as Tempel 1, that is, 75% open space, 2/3 of its mass pure water ice (A’Hearn et al. 2005; Kerr 2005; Sunshine et al. 2007), then 1/6 of the sphere’s volume would be ice. Accounting for the slight volumetric difference between ice and its melted form, then the IO’s equivalent water volume was 1.29*10^9 km^3. To approximate the equivalent depth of water delivered, this volume can be divided by the present oceans’ surface area (3.62*10^8 km^2). Thus, the IO delivered an average ocean water depth of 3.57 km (more than two miles). The newly introduced waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the former abyss upward; the floodwaters did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. The IO’s waters created a new Earth ecosystem era, the Post-Diluvian.

Figure6 blog Figure 6. 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).

Figure 6 is an ArcGIS-produced model of pre-flood Earth with an estimated average of 3 km less water coverage than the present sea level. The model shows that, before the flood, formerly exposed landscapes (tan and beige) were more abundant than those submerged (blue); vast seas and oceans existed before the flood, but they were disjointed. Presently exposed landscapes (beige) were more than 3 km above the former sea level. Continents existed in places now covered by conjoined oceans. The importance of this map to reforming anthropology cannot be overstated.

Geology’s historic error

Geology’s fundamental belief that there was never a worldwide flood finds its origin in the early decades of the nineteenth century when geologists in Europe debated whether the whole of the earth suffered a deluge. Geologists set about various parts of the continent and discovered that diluvial deposits belonged to multiple distinct events. Thus, at its essence, the argument against the worldwide flood went like this: because there was no common event in the diluvial records, then there could never have been a worldwide flood.

Several key figures influenced the debate, among them the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor at Cambridge University, and for two years president of the Geological Society of London. In his farewell presidential address at the society’s 1831 annual meeting, Sedgwick recanted his belief in the single flood: “The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. . . . Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, . . . I think it right . . . thus publicly to read my recantation.” (Sedgwick 1831)

In drawing their “no worldwide flood, ever” conclusion, Sedgwick and his contemporaries failed to consider that landscapes now submerged might once have been exposed. Nor were they able to look into the depths to discern their topography and morphology. These early geologists assumed that the present amount of water has been with the earth since its beginning, thereby precluding the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were at one time exposed but were later inundated as a result of some unknown event. The early geologists’ precise conclusion from the evidence should have been that a worldwide flood did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. That a worldwide flood did not submerge presently exposed landscapes is precise and correct, yet it is wholly different from geology’s tenet that there was never a worldwide flood. Unfortunately for science, the early geologists’ incorrect conclusion became an accepted, fundamental belief. Henceforth, it is annulled.

Monterey, California, Pre-impact 

Prior to the impact, what is now coastal California would have been continuously inundated by rains induced by winds uplifted by the nearly vertical and formerly exposed continental margin. Eventually those rain waters would be energized by the more than 3 km fall down the shelf, and their scouring interactions would create Monterey Canyon, shown on Figure 7. Identical processes account for the many well-preserved river drainage systems found submerged throughout the planet.

Figure7 blogFigure 7. This annotated map identifies geologic features off the coast of Monterey, California. The image depicts three subaerial intermittent streams (upper right), several now-submerged tributaries, an oxbow (or meander), a turbidity flow, and the confluence region of two tributaries wherein the tributaries’ beds briefly lose their definitions. The system’s apparent terminus in the lower left is approximately 250 km from where the Salinas River now enters the Pacific Ocean.

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

The straight trail left by a massive landslide caused by the collapse of the oxbow’s southwestern wall is also evident. The collapse was caused by rising ocean waters impinging on the riverbank that had become weakened as the river swelled with rainfall resulting from the cosmic impact. We note that the turbidity flow fell straight down the gravitational gradient and that it did not attempt to organize itself into other pre-existing flows in the area; in addition, its remnants lack any semblance to the other submerged riverbeds in the region. Let us note that the region to the left side of Fig. 7 is in the abyssal plain where geologists’ presumed gravity currents could not exist due to the absence of sufficiently steep gradients.

The confluence region depicted on Fig. 7 appears ambiguous or smeared as a consequence of river-borne sediments being deposited into rising floodwaters much like the formation of river deltas. Other river-borne materials that were deposited into the rising ocean waters account for the region’s sediment-filled channels (Fildani and Normark 2004).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has obtained core samples from this confluence region. NOAA reports that the primary composition of the cores’ materials is terrigenous sands, and the secondary composition is terrigenous gravel deposits (NOAA 2011); that is, sediments samples obtained from the confluence region located more than 80 km from shore and now in more than 3 km of water are derived from terrestrial environments, not marine environments. Indeed they were: the sediments were carried and deposited by the pre-impact subaerially flowing river, and they were deposited when its waters met the newly introduced, rising ocean level.

The more northern of the two tributaries indicated on the right side of Fig. 7 drained what is now the Big Sur region westward and then to the north of what is now a seamount. This river’s course through abyssal region is somewhat difficult for us to discern on the map because, like the confluence region, it is filled with sediments. Since this is a relatively flat region (there is a 120 m elevation drop over the 40 km from the shelf to the confluence), the riverbed is smeared or ambiguous on the map because, like the confluence, the abyssal plane through which it flowed became filled by river-borne sediments deposited into newly rising ocean waters.

Encircled on Figure 8 are two valleys south of Monterey that are approximately 4 km apart. The horizontal and vertical dimensions of the two valleys are nearly identical, which indicates that they experienced eons of identical pre-flood weathering. The western valley became submerged by the IO’s waters while the eastern valley remains subaerial.

Figure8 blogFigure 8. Two valleys along the Big Sur coast of California are encircled. They have nearly identical horizontal and vertical dimensions.

Figure 9 is an annotated map of a portion of the Salinas Valley in Central California. It demonstrates not only the local ecosystem before the flood, but it also reveals environmental changes caused by the worldwide floodwaters. The flat region depicted in the central part on the map was a pre-flood lake bed, and the former water level can be discerned on each side of what is now the valley; the lake’s waters stopped erosive momentum from collected rain waters draining out of surrounding hillsides. This former lake region was more than 3 km above the former sea level, so it was uplifted winds that condensed to create persistent rains that rounded the hills and filled the lake, and the lake’s waters would eventually drain to the northwest and then down the shelf into Monterey Canyon. The arrow on Fig. 9 points to the only post-flood stream in the valley. It is an intermittent stream, carving its way westward toward the Salinas River as it drains the series of arroyos and hills to its east and northeast. It demonstrates what 13,000 years of Post-Diluvian erosion looks like near Monterey, California. The dry lake bed (that is now known as the Salinas Valley) is testament to the dramatic change in the local ecosystem brought by the flood waters.

Figure9 blogFigure 9. The arrow points to the only intermittent stream that has carved into the Salinas Valley, California, from the surrounding hills and their drainage systems. The Salinas Valley was an upland lake prior to the introduction of the worldwide flood’s waters.

Figure 10 is a photograph of the Monterey Peninsula shoreline region. Rocks in the surf, those protruding from the beach, and those well above the beach (foreground) show identical erosion. Furthermore, the rock formations in the surf are jagged. These conditions would be impossible if, according to geology’s prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm, the rocks in the ocean had been exposed to pounding surf for billions of years; they should appear rounded, or they should be eroded entirely. Note the gray color of the uppermost layer of topsoil on the right side of the image.

Figure10 blogFigure 10. Jagged rocks in the surf, exposed on the beach, and above the beach along the Monterey, California, coastline show identical erosion.

Figure 11 captures a feature found on the California coastline. The photograph was taken during low tide. Its central feature is a small rock peninsula topped by less than a meter of gray soil that is protected on the surface by invasive ice plant. The peninsula’s isolation from nearby soils and its proximity to the ocean can be discerned on Fig. 12 where its location is slightly left of the red x mark (indicates the location from which the photo was taken). This tiny peninsula is very close to the ocean during low tide and nearly directly above it during high tide; it is only 4 or 5 meters above the high tide level. The topsoil layer could not have formed above the small peninsula if there were never a flood.

Figure11 blogFigure 11. A small rock peninsula above a beach on the California coast near Monterey has a segment capped by a layer of topsoil (gray materials beneath non-indigenous ice plant) that has yet to be washed away like its neighboring sections.

The isolated topsoil layer is easily explained according to the correct perspective that there was a worldwide flood: the layer was contiguous with and exactly similar to all the other topsoil in the nearby region (noticeable on Fig. 10, just right of center), including those from lower-elevation rocks that are now submerged. The common soil layers formed over eons of varying weather, but especially from persistent rains that eroded the bedrock terrain features. The soil layer was mutually self-supporting until intrusion by floodwaters removed the layer from formations in or exposed to the water, thereby making adjacent and partially removed soil layers unstable. Unlike nearby features in and near the ocean waters, most of the tiny peninsula’s upper layer of soil has survived the nearly 13,000 years of post-flood ocean and environmental activity.

Figure12 blogFigure 12. The small rock peninsula in Fig. 11 is found near Bird Rock along the coast near Monterey, California. It is situated to the left of the red x mark, from where the Figure 11 photograph was taken. To get an idea of the scale in this image, the distance from the “B” in Bird Rock to the red x mark is approximately 100 m.

The topsoil layer that once covered now-submerged landscapes in the local region has been removed by the ocean waters, exposing the jagged rocks beneath, and the soil remnants now form portions of the area’s ocean bed. Knowing that former soils have been mixed with other pre-flood soils to form littoral ocean sediments should help submarine geomorphologists to better analyze and understand the morphology of samples obtained from such regions.

Other Pre-impact Explanations 

The flood displaced the atmosphere upward, meaning that the landscapes we presently occupy would have been exposed to significantly less pre-flood atmospheric pressure because they were more than 3 km above the former sea level. An estimate obtained from models of atmospheric pressure versus altitude indicates that air pressure 3.5 km above sea level is roughly 60% of standard atmospheric pressure; landscapes roughly 5 km above sea level would have slightly less than 50%. Interestingly, a recent publication analyzed gas bubbles obtained from basaltic lava flows in Australia that reportedly solidified several billion years before present at what its investigators take to be present sea level. Investigators concluded that atmospheric pressure was less than one half modern levels (Som et al. 2016).

Figure 13 presents a Google Earth map of the Beasley River region in Australia where the study’s researchers obtained their lava samples. Also shown is the bathymetry of a portion of the ocean to the west where the drainages in the former basin ended at a common terminal depth, in this case approximately 5.2 km below present sea level. Rather than forming at sea level, the lava instead formed more than 5 km above sea level where we expect the atmospheric pressure to be less than half of present. Thus, Earth’s atmosphere has been relatively constant over the course of time.

Figure13 blogFigure 13. A Google Earth image shows the Beasley River region in northwest Australia. The terminal depth common to the region’s many drainages, now more than 5 km below present sea level, is discernible in the former basin offshore to the west (left of image center).

Another recent discovery, that of a massive subglacial trough 300 km long, up to 25 km across, deeper than the Grand Canyon, and more than 2 km below present sea level (Ross, 2013), is easily understood in the context of the worldwide flood. Glacial scouring 2 km beneath present sea level could never have occurred had the present amount of water always existed, as currently assumed. However, in the context of the worldwide flood, the glaciers formed in Antarctica flowed down into the former abyss and subaerially scoured the valley over the eons before the flood. They have since been covered and preserved by the flood waters.

Coupled with the vast new waters and ensuing changes to weather patterns, the IO induced irreversible ecosystem and climatic changes that geologists recognize as the YD event. In short, the worldwide flood and the YD event are synonymous.

Conclusions and Implications 

A cosmic impact nearly 13,000 years before present introduced more than 3 km of water to the earth’s ocean basins and ecosystem. By causing the submersion of vast formerly exposed landscapes, by displacing the atmosphere, and by inducing the Younger Dryas ecosystem changes, the worldwide flood forever changed the planet. The impact ushered in a new geologic era, the Post-Diluvian.

Geology’s prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm is the most profound error in the history of science. It rests on an indisputable error: by concluding that there was never a worldwide flood, early geologists precluded the possibility that submerged landscapes might at one time have been exposed and later flooded. They assumed that the present amount of water has always been with the planet, and in so doing they passed judgment on landscapes that they could not observe. As a consequence, an entire branch of science has been fundamentally wrong for nearly 200 years: geology wholly and completely misunderstands the morphology of both exposed and submerged landforms. Only by accident might submarine geomorphology have ever correctly analyzed sediments derived from oceans and seas that existed prior to the worldwide flood.

The observations afforded by Google Maps and Google Earth and the resulting paradigm shift are historically equivalent to Galileo’s use of the telescope that led to overturning a prevailing yet incorrect belief, geocentrism. Ultimately, every scientific discipline must accept and incorporate the correct paradigm: there was a worldwide flood.

There are consequences to cosmology and astronomy. The smaller, irregularly shaped comets we observe are but fragments of larger objects such as the IO. Short period comets are very likely to be IO fragments. Our understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe could be informed by the age and composition of minerals obtained from the IO’s core remnants, as well as from the deposit mounds and debris scattered to the north and northeast of the impact crescent.

Appendix A

Newton’s law of gravitation and his second law of motion allow us to determine IO-induced accelerations in the Oort Cloud. The acceleration of one object due to the mass of another is:

a = G * M/r^2

where: M is the mass of the attracting object, r is the distance to that object’s center, and G is the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.67*10^–11.

From this equation we can show that the acceleration of an object near the earth’s surface is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 (first set of calculations, below). From there we can compute the acceleration at the surface of a 50 km sphere composed of a very dense material. Then we add a porous ice-debris outer layer like that of the IO and calculate the acceleration at its outer surface.

Acceleration at Earth’s surface:

Radius: 6,380,000 meters
Volume: 1.0878E+21 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 5.98E+24 kg
Acceleration at surface: 9.799088059 m/sec^2               =  G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s core surface:

Radius: 50,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
Density: 5497.31393 kg/meter^3
Mass: 2.87839E+18 kg
Acceleration at IO core surface: 0.076795361 m/sec^2   = G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s outer surface:

Radius: 1,250,000 meters
Volume: 5.23599E+14 meter^3
mass, 1km^3 water: 1E+12 kg
H20 mass, outer layer: 1.28779E+21 kg
mineral mass, outer layer: 5497.31393 kg

a_combined mass core+shell: 0.198841398 m/sec^2    = G*[(H20+mineral mass, outer                                                                                                              layer) + core mass]/outerradius^2

IO’s acceleration, expressed as a fraction of Earth’s acceleration:

a_core/a_earthsurface = 0.007836991 = 0.70%
a_(combined mass core + shell)/a_earthsurface = 0.020291827 = 2%

Appendix B

Listed on Table 1, below, are latitude-longitude coordinates for some IO-created impact craters along its approach path. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to illustrate the multitude of craters created by IO ejecta. The term “eye” refers to the suggested altitude from which to investigate each crater. The “Comments” describe locations and/or features.

Table 1
Impact Coordinates    Eye                 Comments

Northern Latitudes
40.6341N 98.0162W     7,800 ft       Nebraska; might be difficult to discern among crop circles
40.4670N 98.0381W     17,000 ft     Nebraska
39.1658N 75.8462W     3,500 ft       Maryland
34.8719N 79.0371W     46,600 ft     South Carolina, swarm of elliptical craters
34.8370N 79.1854W     20.3 mi       South Carolina, elliptical craters
32.8604N 82.0342W     12.5 mi       Georgia
33.4013N 104.0641W   40,600 ft     New Mexico
34.6756N 103.9874W   37,500 ft     New Mexico, swarm
34.8448N 104.1021W   45,000 ft     New Mexico, swarm
32.2140N 102.4217W   30,600 ft     Texas, swarm with one crater in someone’s backyard
32.5304N 100.6679W   17.5 mi        Texas
26.3530N 97.7112W     28,300 ft      Mexico
25.7206N 97.3893W     23.7 mi        Mexico
20.3999N 87.4530W     37,800 ft      Mexico; impact string visible at large view scale, running SW-NE
20.0234N 87.5228W     40 mi           Mexico, swarm of large impact craters; some carved shoreline
19.1279N 87.8039W     16 mi           Mexico, swarm
18.3340N 88.2799W     13 mi           Mexico
14.4011N 83.3440W     13,000 ft      Mexico

Southern Latitudes
6.1710S 80.7380W       28,500 ft       Peru; equatorial latitude impact crater
10.5931S 76.3234W     28.0 mi         Peru; impacts in mountainous region
22.8193S 66.8091W     47,000 ft       Argentina; swarm
34.8117S 61.6309W     20 mi             Argentina
35.0281S 62.4160W     31,000 ft       Argentina
35.8648S 62.3402W     32,000 ft       Argentina; impact swarm
37.6990S 61.0177W     18 mi             Argentina; swarm
41.2603S 68.0857W     13.5 mi          Argentina; check out the drainage runoff patterns from ice melt
41.3549S 67.7267W     16 mi             Argentina; swarm
45.1512S 70.6540W     24 mi             Argentina; small swarm, some drainages observable
50.5908S 70.3878W     37 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.5756S 70.0404W     30 mi             Argentina; large swarm
51.9179S 70.0099W     30 mi             Argentina (barely); large swarm
51.7803S 59.1534W     28,000 ft        Falkland Islands
53.6401S 68.2996W     40 mi             Argentina; swarm of large craters