The Impact And Exit Event.

[Moontanman]

Sorry, Zythryn. I'm not ignoring what you are saying - I just don't have an answer. What I can't reconcile with the comments relating to the impossibility of an impactor passing through Earth is what is clearly visible - especially on the (clickable) detailed NOAA map of Earth. Dammit. It even looks like an exit event has taken place westwards from China.

 

The geology north of the Gulf Of Mexico supports the suggestion that an impactor passed underneath, forcing up the Earths crust. Following the 'route' of the geologic upheaval suggested, an 'exit' site can be found.

 

I understand what's being put forward as strong debunking evidence by Turtle et al., yet there they are; the obvious anomaly that is the Gulf Of Mexico (no-one has yet explained why it is not represented along the Mid Atlantic Ridge); the corresponding uplift of the Earth's crust in a northerly direction; the (suggested) impact event magma column remnants complete with 'sinew-like starnds' at the base (described as such in the pdf); a significant - in fact unique - depression where an associated exit event should have occured (the site of the Taklamakan Desert); additional geologic features west and south of the exit event that strongly resemble the magma column at the 'impact' site; a huge area of what does seem to be debris fallout to the west of the 'exit' site ...and those pesky 'profile similarities' of the Andes mountain range, the west coast of Africa and the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

 

..and there's more of the same, too.

 

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't - just yet - rush to agree with the debunkers.

 

Finchcliff, I saw a man on TV last night saw a woman in half, it clearly showed the box she was in being cut into two pieces, It really looked real. But trust me when i say no woman was cut in half. No matter how clearly you can see what looks like a meteor traveled through the earth it did not happen. No material object can do such a thing, it simply cannot happen. Any material object striking the earth is with in a fraction of a second turned into plasma. The energy of impact vaporises a huge amount of material resulting in a crater, not a tunnel. All the other claims of this idea are null and void due to this one fact!

[Finchcliff]

You're right! Take a look!

 

I find that techniques that are a bit more sophisticated than squinting your eyes and hoping are more enlightening!

 

Eyes that see do not grow old,

Buffy

 

I have no idea why you inserted the red and blue circles and lines - if you are going to use the image to make your point, surely it is better to provide all the information?

 

The following three images are all of the same scale, from the same source: NASA. I used photoshop to create a transparency then simply superimposed Africa over the Andes. I have made no alterations to 'make it fit'. You will see the same outcome within the pdf download.

 

 

The similarity is obvious.

[Buffy]

The similarity is obvious.

I plotted a regression of the points representing the two "outlines" and superimposed them.

 

This regression analysis clearly demonstrates what I said: the angles and the radii pointed to are significantly (>10%) different.

 

So, no, it's not "obvious."

 

I'd suggest you take a look at this article to understand the fallacy of this "evidence".

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see,

Buffy

[Finchcliff]

...then there is the evidence of mass drainage events into the Atlantic from either side of the Atlantic.

 

Ocean bathymetry is revealing much more than was known just 10 years ago.

 

For example, take the huge underwater drainage channels off the east coast of north America and those off the west coast of Europe that indicate a huge and rapid displacement of water. These would not exist if the Atlantic Ocean had taken millions of years to open up.

 

These are complemented by equally huge drainage channels inland, east of the Rockies in north America, all of which make their way to the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. Why would they be there if the adjoining landmass had lifted slowly over millions of years?

[Moontanman]

Ummm, maybe because the channels aren't due to the same type of drainage as you assume? Why must everything be evidence of some extreme event? I suggest you look into these "examples" of extreme events before you make such grandiose claims about them.

[modest]

Why must everything be evidence of some extreme event?

 

Confirmation bias

 

~modest

[Finchcliff]

I plotted a regression of the points representing the two "outlines" and superimposed them.

 

This regression analysis clearly demonstrates what I said: the angles and the radii pointed to are significantly (>10%) different.

 

So, no, it's not "obvious."

 

I'd suggest you take a look at this article to understand the fallacy of this "evidence".

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see,

Buffy

 

Hmmm. I see. Yes I think I get it now.

 

Two continental coastlines, 2,000 + miles apart have a similarity between them (even when viewed within Buffy's regression analysis) that even the most short sighted person could recognise, and I'm supposed to be the one with my eyes closed!

 

Buffy, the mere fact that you felt you had to provide a regression analysis proves that you saw a similarity (which you then sought to disprove).

 

Take out of the equation my superimposed effort and your regression analysis - and, after allowing for continental drift, what is left is ...a similarity between the Andes and the west coast of Africa.

 

 

 

Not a woman being cut in half, Moontanman. ;)

[Moontanman]

Hmmm. I see. Yes I think I get it now.

 

Two continental coastlines, 2,000 + miles apart have a similarity between them (even when viewed within Buffy's regression analysis) that even the most short sighted person could recognise, and I'm supposed to be the one with my eyes closed!

 

Buffy, the mere fact that you felt you had to provide a regression analysis proves that you saw a similarity (which you then sought to disprove).

 

Take out of the equation my superimposed effort and your regression analysis - and, after allowing for continental drift, what is left is ...a similarity between the Andes and the west coast of Africa.

 

 

 

Not a woman being cut in half, Moontanman.

 

Not an object impacting the earth and exiting the other side either finchcliff.

[Finchcliff]

Ummm, maybe because the channels aren't due to the same type of drainage as you assume? Why must everything be evidence of some extreme event? I suggest you look into these "examples" of extreme events before you make such grandiose claims about them.

 

Because if the Atlantic Ocean basin had widened rapidly, and if the impactor did indeed raise the landmass of northwest America (as has been suggested), then the overlying water would need to drain away somewhere. When volumes of water do this on such a huge scale, drainage channels are absoloutley inevitable - and there they are.

 

This is not me interpreting 'everything' as evidence of some extreme event: it's a perfectly natural consequence of ...an extreme event, and is part of the 'timeline' of events discussed within the impact and exit event theory.

[Buffy]

...then there is the evidence of mass drainage events into the Atlantic from either side of the Atlantic.

"Mass drainage": what do you mean? Deep underwater canyons where rivers exit? I can assure you they're quite common: take a look at Monterey Canyon and the Golden Gate Canyon

 

So, yes,

Ocean bathymetry is revealing much more than was known just 10 years ago.

...but it's not what this book claims it to be. These canyons clearly show slow and progressive growth of the channels over well-documented time spans.

 

In deference to you I did just look through the entire length of the book, and I was surprised to see that there are few references to time scales or dates or quite frankly any data or math to back up the claims other than lots of pictures that basically are accompanied by text that says something of the form "if you just look at this it's obvious."

 

Then I got to the part about the Andes...

 

So, the theory is that the entire Andes mountain range consists of ejecta from this collision.

 

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking.

 

Any decent geological work on the Andes has ample evidence of uplift of sedimentary rock.

 

If you are unfamiliar with this, sedimentary rock displays layers, while magma forms igneous rock, and the two are easily distinguishable.

 

Do you understand that this evidence also does not even remotely resemble reality?

 

Don't you want to ask the question why the book does not even address this?

 

And finally, there's this:

These are complemented by equally huge drainage channels inland, east of the Rockies in north America, all of which make their way to the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. Why would they be there if the adjoining landmass had lifted slowly over millions of years?

Did you know that the Sierra Nevada mountain range which is west of the Rockies "flows" in the opposite direction, towards the west? They show similar "huge drainage channels"--some of which you've heard of like Yosemite" which go the opposite direction.

 

Moreover we do have evidence of places where catastrophic floods have occurred, like the Missoula Montana Ice Age flood, which are morphologically distinct from the traditional geological formations of canyons and river valleys (above ground or underwater).

 

So as to the Andes/Africa link, can you do more than simply scoff incredulously?

Two continental coastlines, 2,000 + miles apart have a similarity between them (even when viewed within Buffy's regression analysis) that even the most short sighted person could recognise...

Um, that's called "science". This is a "science forum," and if you bothered to read the article I linked above you'd see where your appeal to a vague claim that "even the most short sighted person could recognize" it?

Buffy, the mere fact that you felt you had to provide a regression analysis proves that you saw a similarity (which you then sought to disprove).

Well, no, I guess I have to point out that you claimed the similarity before I thought about it!

 

No, none of it is obvious. In fact it does not take much thinking for the counter-arguments to start "flooding" out....

 

Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof.

 

In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern...

 

Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way,

Buffy

[Turtle]

"Mass drainage": what do you mean?

...

In deference to you I did just look through the entire length of the book, and I was surprised to see that there are few references to time scales or dates or quite frankly any data or math to back up the claims other than lots of pictures that basically are accompanied by text that says something of the form "if you just look at this it's obvious."

...

Moreover we do have evidence of places where catastrophic floods have occurred, like the Missoula Montana Ice Age flood, which are morphologically distinct from the traditional geological formations of canyons and river valleys (above ground or underwater).

...

No, none of it is obvious. In fact it does not take much thinking for the counter-arguments to start "flooding" out....

...

Unfortunately so many of these silly claims seem to come loaded with such a distaste for science, that they go out of their way to avoid any scientific grounding, data or other proof.

In reading through this book I have to say that I seriously got more scientific content from my last visit to the Tate Modern...

...

Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way, ;)

Buffy

 

unfortunately virtually all these silly claims about geology that have crossed our humble hypog threshhold have their roots in a sudden catastrophic flood. know what i mean vern.

 

They do but flatter with their lips, and dissemble in their double heart. ;)

[Zythryn]

Buffy, the mere fact that you felt you had to provide a regression analysis proves that you saw a similarity (which you then sought to disprove).

 

Take out of the equation my superimposed effort and your regression analysis - and, after allowing for continental drift, what is left is ...a similarity between the Andes and the west coast of Africa.

 

 

 

Not a woman being cut in half, Moontanman. ;)

 

If vague similarities are all that are needed, how do we explain the similarity between the shape of the Andes and the shape of my arm when it is bent?

[freeztar]

If vague similarities are all that are needed, how do we explain the similarity between the shape of the Andes and the shape of my arm when it is bent?:phones:

 

Hmmm...now that you mention it, it seems obvious!

 

Maybe you can tell us how old you are and we can finally get a date for this impact event. ;)

[jab2]

If vague similarities are all that are needed, how do we explain the similarity between the shape of the Andes and the shape of my arm when it is bent?:phones:

I have a new theory. When one look at the visual similarity of the round human head and another round part on the opposite end of the body, some people seem to have had a catastrophic impact between head and butt, totally decomposing what little rational thought they had. My theory is only build on visual evidence, but maybe Buffy can run a regression analysis on the two shapes to see of they fit? ;)

[Boerseun]

This entire "theory" is wrong, and does not cater for obvious evidence.

 

First off the bat, the coastlines Africa and South America, the usual suspects, was also key in making Wegener figure out continental drift. Fact is, they were together at one stage. But they did not split because of some cataclysmic impact event. They split at the same relatively unimpressive rate and tempo that the Great Rift Valley in Africa is tearing itself open; inch-by-inch, continuously, over many years. And we say that because Africa and South America is still moving apart, and that movement can be measured. So is North America moving away from Europe - measurably so. When the first telegraph cables were laid between New York and England, they regularly snapped because of this. The solution is to lay those cables zig-zag fashion, to take up the expansion where it crosses the mid-oceanic ridge. This theory does not explain why the continents are sill in motion.

 

As to the matter of oil deposits, where the explanation from this theory is that those miles and miles of rock have been deposited "instantly" on a forest, if that was the case then there'd be much less oil in any deposit that what we do, indeed, find. The normally accepted theory of plant material being carried down at a subduction zone and being "scraped off", if you will, will concentrate much more material due to density differences with the underlying rock in pockets, explains much better and is used to good effect by petroleum geologists in predicting where to drill test holes for oil. Also, for some reason, the crust overlying these pockets of oil can be much older than the actual living organisms that caused the oil to form, because it is being horizontally carried along from the subduction zone. If it was formed from an impact, the rock would be much younger, and consist mainly of pseudo-catalytic brechhia, instead of the structures we do see.

 

This theory did not pass the test.

[Moontanman]

Aww you left off lemits post, I had a really funny remark to add to it, darn it!

[Finchcliff]

Could it be possible that if an impactor with enough energy slams into the Earth, a seismic wave ripples outward from the impact site, gradually lowering in height as the circumference of the Earth grows bigger (as the wave travels), only to substantially grow again on the other side of the planet as the wave now has a continuously shrinking area up to the point where it meets again at the exact opposite side of the impact, with one hell of a constructive-interference wave ripping a hole out the far side of the planet, without the impactor actually having even penetrated past the upper mantle?

 

I've never actually thought of this, nor heard of the scenario being analysed. To the best of my spitballin', it would require an impactor of sufficient mass and speed hitting at almost exactly 90 degrees, dead-on - otherwise the wave won't meet perfectly on the other side. It should also penetrate deep enough for the mass of the wave to travel through the mantle and not the crust - because I suppose the mantle is much more uniform, and will allow the wave to meet perfectly on the other side, whereas the crust is broken up and will distort the wave and not allow for a simultaneous meet-up of the dispersed wave on the other side.

 

Curious...

 

Boerseun - The scenario you describe is not something that had occurred to me when exploring the theory and IMO is a very good observation. If seismic waves did as you suggest and travel around the planet, meeting up again to rip open the far side of Earth then would that explain the numerous crescent-shaped geological features that exist between the 'impact site' and the Himalayas, which interestingly are also crescent shaped?

 

 

I know, I know ...the above 'shockwaves' could represent anything from shockwaves to a woman being cut in half. :phones:

 

However, the 'crescent' features mentioned above might be clearer below: