Mediterranean, Appalachian, Pangaea Impact Crater

[Kalopin]

To whom this may concern:

 

The Mediterranean Sea is the remnants of a Lunar impact that broke up Pangaea,is the reason for the planet's iridium layer and was the cause of mass-extinction. The Appalachian Mountain Range is the western rim of this impact, as so much material was burned and pushed into a pile of coal and at the same time sending uplift to The Catskills and Acadian Ranges, pushing down and 'pinching" to produce The Mississippi Embayment prior to sedimentary deposits. This then sent an uplift to give rise to The Ozarks, which are all limestone,from beneath ancient seas, sending the shockwave to flatten The Great Plains and at this same moment sent The North American Plate to subdue The Farallon Plate to create The Rocky Mountain Range and sent massive amounts of water and sediments to form The Grand Canyon. All this occurred in the 'blink of an eye geologically', within days!

 

Further study of terrestrial impacts [see: http://koolkreations.wix.com/kalopins-legacy ] confirms that Chicxulub Crater, although it was a catastrophe to send out tsunamis, is not a big enough or was not a 'hard' enough impact to produce the iridium layer of the K/T boundary. As new information has been studied to give strong indication that it was a bolide impact to fault tectonc plates and break up the supercontinent of Pangaea. As of yet, no faulting has been discovered directly below Chicxulub. This has been so-far mainly overlooked...

 

Does convection or any other mechanism describe and take into consideration every detail involved concerning this topography?! ;-]

Edited September 29, 2013 by Kalopin

[Eclogite]

The sedimentary, stratigraphic, geochronological, geophysical, geochemical, palaeontological, geomagnetic and other geological data, observations and derived hypotheses demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt that your speculation lacks any match with reality.

 

Please confirm the dating you are assigning to this event. Then, if you would, offer one piece of evidence in support of your specualtion.

[Kalopin]

The sedimentary, stratigraphic, geochronological, geophysical, geochemical, palaeontological, geomagnetic and other geological data, observations and derived hypotheses demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt that your speculation lacks any match with reality.

 

Please confirm the dating you are assigning to this event. Then, if you would, offer one piece of evidence in support of your specualtion.

 

1. What process would form that amount of coal into mountains?

2. What process would exhume massive amounts of limestone from deep in a sea?

3. What process would seperate a supercontinent?

4. Why do all the land masses appear to pan out from the Mediterranean?

5. What would be your "derived hypotheses"?

 

The geological data all matches my hypothesis. There is no argument that would take into account even the few details I have presented. This scenario also explains many other anomalies [Marianas Trench- where the plate was 'ripped" from the mantle, Sahara Desert-where much of the finer material from the ejecta settled ,...]

 

The dating would be a gross estimate. Here is your current theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea#Rifting_and_break-up It is my opinion that an extraterrestrial impact was the initial mechanism. The process of convection could not produce the geological structures present...

 

It has been considered that The Mediterranean Sea was dry for a period until a couple of other impacts opened up The Strait of Gibraltar: http://tampicoventures.com/Impacts/Europe/Gibraltar/Gibraltar.html

Edited September 30, 2013 by Kalopin

[Eclogite]

Thank you for your reply. However, I note that you have offered no evidence in support of your speculation. You have simply made a series of unsubstantiated statements that are contradicted by any reasonable examination of actual evidence. So, I ask you again, please provide evidence that provides support for your speculation.

1. What process would form that amount of coal into mountains?

In brief, preservation of vegetable material in an extensive, sinking basin, followed by burial and chemical conversion of the biomaterial to lignite,then bituminous coal and ultimately - if temperature and time are allowed to do their job - anthracite. The environment of deposition, the processes involved, etc are reasonably well understood. What do you find problematic about the current theory?

 

 

2. What process would exhume massive amounts of limestone from deep in a sea?

Most limestones are shallow water deposits, requireing little elevation to raise them above sea-level. However, plate tectonics is perfectly capable of raising strata several kilometres, or of exhuming rocks from tens of kilometres below the surface. What makes you think the mountains (pun intended) of evidence are wrong?

 

3. What process would seperate a supercontinent?

The inexorable forces generated by thermal disequilibrium in the mantle, coupled with the low viscosity of the mantle over extended time periods. Given the clear cut observations of plate motion determined via such diverse means as stratigraphy, GPS measurements, seismic analysis, etc what causes you to doubt all of these data?

 

4. Why do all the land masses appear to pan out from the Mediterranean?

Why do some clouds look like giant cows?

 

5. What would be your "derived hypotheses"?

Plate tectonics - the culmination of a century of puzzlement and three decades of increasingly revelatory investigations.

 

 

The geological data all matches my hypothesis. There is no argument that would take into account even the few details I have presented. This scenario also explains many other anomalies [Marianas Trench- where the plate was 'ripped" from the mantle, Sahara Desert-where much of the finer material from the ejecta settled ,...]

I repeat, merely making statements and claiming significance for them is not science. I recommend, if you wish to be taken seriously that you produce something more than vague assertions.

[Kalopin]

Thank you for your reply. However, I note that you have offered no evidence in support of your speculation. You have simply made a series of unsubstantiated statements that are contradicted by any reasonable examination of actual evidence. So, I ask you again, please provide evidence that provides support for your speculation.

In brief, preservation of vegetable material in an extensive, sinking basin, followed by burial and chemical conversion of the biomaterial to lignite,then bituminous coal and ultimately - if temperature and time are allowed to do their job - anthracite. The environment of deposition, the processes involved, etc are reasonably well understood. What do you find problematic about the current theory?

 

 

 

Most limestones are shallow water deposits, requireing little elevation to raise them above sea-level. However, plate tectonics is perfectly capable of raising strata several kilometres, or of exhuming rocks from tens of kilometres below the surface. What makes you think the mountains (pun intended) of evidence are wrong?

 

The inexorable forces generated by thermal disequilibrium in the mantle, coupled with the low viscosity of the mantle over extended time periods. Given the clear cut observations of plate motion determined via such diverse means as stratigraphy, GPS measurements, seismic analysis, etc what causes you to doubt all of these data?

 

 

Why do some clouds look like giant cows?

 

Plate tectonics - the culmination of a century of puzzlement and three decades of increasingly revelatory investigations.

 

 

 

I repeat, merely making statements and claiming significance for them is not science. I recommend, if you wish to be taken seriously that you produce something more than vague assertions.

 

 

It is so funny that so many 'scientists' want people to believe that coal can build itself into mountains over millions of years, that makes no sense. All the organic matter just built up and stayed in this one area? :-]]]]]

 

Do you feel that it is acceptable to believe that such solid limestone mountains can slowly rise to such heights with just tectonic movement? Wouldn't it be more likely to have been some extreme, instantaneous force?

 

The study of plate tectonics has left out the most important part- extraterrestrial forces! [-there are several involved]

 

This is no pareidolia, the continents have all been pushed away from this same central location and is why the African and Eurasian Plates are now going back toward one another, as a crater will tend to try and fill in, just as any explosion has an implosion.

 

You see, this is ALL evidence for a major impact. The Marianas Trench shows proof of catastrophic forces. This was not formed over long periods.

My evidence consists of every structure surrounding The Mediterranean Sea, the fact that the American plates have drifted so far from Europe and Africa, and there is no evidence to support current theories. It is just common belief that convection is the main force to cause break-up, because why? There is certainly no proof, just baseless assertion.

As an individual you are entitled to have your belief, as a scientist you are obligated to examine the percentage of possibility.

I propose that it is much more likely that a catastrophic impact event produced current topography than just convection, tension, torsion, pressure, erosion,... although all were involved to degrees. the "mountains" of evidence are all in favor of this impact scenario...

 

I may add that the lack of convection currents between the divergent boundaries of the African Plate and South American Plate is another strong indicator... Also, I think it not difficult to view the original crater design, as the entire eatern seaboard of the U.S. still retains the shape, giving strong indications on angle, direction, force, depth,... of impact. Seperating The Strait of Gibraltar to accomadate the length of the east coast of the United States matches and gives an idea of the orignal size and shape of the crater after such a devastating impact...;-]

 

As I have given many reasons for a Lunar impact, can you give any good reasons for a convection break-up? ;-]

Edited October 1, 2013 by Kalopin

[sman]

This is one of the things that, it seems to me, happens quite often whenever those untrained in science dabble in the methods: You’ve picked evidence to satisfy a hypothesis, rather than generating a hypothesis that satisfies all the evidence.

 

It’s easy to do. In our day-to-day lives, whenever two or more things confirm an idea we already have, the idea is greatly bolstered in our minds. It is also accompanied by a vague good-feeling which compels us to move forward, to seek other confirmations. Unfortunately - or fortunately for those who would learn from it - the history of science has shown us that this method, however intuitive and feel-good it may be, produces all kinds of errors. This thread is a grand example this kind of error. ;)

[Kalopin]

This is one of the things that, it seems to me, happens quite often whenever those untrained in science dabble in the methods: You’ve picked evidence to satisfy a hypothesis, rather than generating a hypothesis that satisfies all the evidence.

 

It’s easy to do. In our day-to-day lives, whenever two or more things confirm an idea we already have, the idea is greatly bolstered in our minds. It is also accompanied by a vague good-feeling which compels us to move forward, to seek other confirmations. Unfortunately - or fortunately for those who would learn from it - the history of science has shown us that this method, however intuitive and feel-good it may be, produces all kinds of errors. This thread is a grand example this kind of error. ;)

 

I would have to say "ditto' to you on your implications!

Do not make a comment with no rebuttal.

You, nor anyone else has any evidence to defend any convection scenario, because there is little/if no evidence for a convection break-up! That is the only reason for the snide remarks.

There is, however, strong evidence pointing directly to a Lunar impact.

it appears that the ones commenting have yet to put any real study into any new hypothesis.

 

This then brings us to the real problem, not the facts or evidence, but the same old tired argument, standing at the "soapbox", blinders on, covering the ears and saying 'la, la, la, la, la, ...' trying to protect the weak status-quo. Instead of trying to learn facts and apply, you all simply continue to postulate from a position of arrogance ["...those untrained in science..."]- that's funny! ;-]]]]]]]].

How is it that so few in certain positions have been able to suppress the media and even the internet for so long, steadily producing another ignorant generation?

This should be no question of morals or ethics, but of investigation into facts.

 

Who wishes to find the truths?

Then give me your argument for the current status quo belief system and I will Prove you are wrong! Convection could NOT have been the main source of break-up, because there is no convection current, no "hot-spots" or any magma chambers, at or near the surface, between The African and South American Plates. This was an instantaneous, catastrophic break!... :-]

Edited October 2, 2013 by Kalopin

[JMJones0424]

Kalopin, clearly you have an interest in geological processes. I'm concerned, however, with a few of your statements. No geologist claims that "coal can build itself into mountains over millions of years." The claims is far more nuanced than that, and if this is your impression of current understanding of geological processes, then you are flat wrong. You also repeatedly refer to a "Lunar impact". I do not suppose you mean to say that the moon collided with the Earth, however, I am curious to what you mean. Are you proposing a chunk of the moon collided with the Earth and set in motion the chain of events you claim otherwise impossible?

 

While sman's response may seem to you to be dismissive, and undoubtedly you have received similar replies before in other forums, I'd invite you to consider the frame of reference from which sman's response was made. You have provided no evidence, no models, no mechanisms; indeed, you have provided nothing other than your own speculation in your attempt to refute damn near the entire body of geological sciences. Certainly you can appreciate why a random stranger would be at least skeptical of your claims.

 

What sman appears to me to be hinting at, and what I'd like to reiterate, is a function of our common failing in reason. We typically seek evidence to support our hypotheses. This is an error in reason, but it is an error that has served us well over the years. Far better to see a panther in the leaves when none exists, then to fail to see the signs of a deadly predator. In many cases, this is a fool's errand, as our quest is easily fulfilled. However, if we are more concerned with accuracy than with confirmation of beliefs, a more appropriate approach would be to seek evidence that disproves our hypothesis. This is a convenient way of escaping the logical trap of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to prove your hypothesis, I'd like to see what evidence you've accumulated that your hypothesis cannot be incorrect.

 

Though you may find other avenues more fruitful, I'd be specifically interested in what calculations you've done regarding the mass of the impactor required to produce the effects you attribute to the impact.

[Kalopin]

Kalopin, clearly you have an interest in geological processes. I'm concerned, however, with a few of your statements. No geologist claims that "coal can build itself into mountains over millions of years." The claims is far more nuanced than that, and if this is your impression of current understanding of geological processes, then you are flat wrong. You also repeatedly refer to a "Lunar impact". I do not suppose you mean to say that the moon collided with the Earth, however, I am curious to what you mean. Are you proposing a chunk of the moon collided with the Earth and set in motion the chain of events you claim otherwise impossible?

 

While sman's response may seem to you to be dismissive, and undoubtedly you have received similar replies before in other forums, I'd invite you to consider the frame of reference from which sman's response was made. You have provided no evidence, no models, no mechanisms; indeed, you have provided nothing other than your own speculation in your attempt to refute damn near the entire body of geological sciences. Certainly you can appreciate why a random stranger would be at least skeptical of your claims.

 

What sman appears to me to be hinting at, and what I'd like to reiterate, is a function of our common failing in reason. We typically seek evidence to support our hypotheses. This is an error in reason, but it is an error that has served us well over the years. Far better to see a panther in the leaves when none exists, then to fail to see the signs of a deadly predator. In many cases, this is a fool's errand, as our quest is easily fulfilled. However, if we are more concerned with accuracy than with confirmation of beliefs, a more appropriate approach would be to seek evidence that disproves our hypothesis. This is a convenient way of escaping the logical trap of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to prove your hypothesis, I'd like to see what evidence you've accumulated that your hypothesis cannot be incorrect.

 

Though you may find other avenues more fruitful, I'd be specifically interested in what calculations you've done regarding the mass of the impactor required to produce the effects you attribute to the impact.

 

 

Yes, but does anyone else really care about the actual geological process?

Yes, I believe the Moon impacted the Earth and on more than a couple/few occassions [probably very similar processes with Vindian, Rodinia, Nuna,...]. It appears the impactor in this case would need that amount of circumference, [approx.] and in Earth's orbit [explains details]. It just matches the amount of force needed. I have supposed it could have been a comet or large asteroid, but the size of the eastern coast of the U.S., the length of The Smoky and Appalachian Mountain Ranges, the size of The Mediterranean all points to a Lunar [Moon] impact.

 

How are youall missing the evidence that I am presenting?

Every geological detail backs my hypothesis and not current theory, sorry.

And, the evidence was all noticed before the hypothesis was realized.

 

The crater rim is The Appalachians that are coal and could not have been piled up in this manner by any other means.

The western basin rim is the eastern coast of the U.S., showing the curve of the impactor.

The Mediterranean Sea shows every sign of being a crater. There is no land mass available to fill in its space when forming Pangaea and all land masses surround this same location.

Brazil matching Ghana, New England and Eastern Canada matching with Great Britain, Scandinavia, France,.. and no volcanism here or mainly throughout the breaking coastline argues for an impact and not slow convection. Mountains were broken apart. The Marianas Trench is proof that this was an instant force.

 

Then I must ask: What is the more "nuanced" answer? Tell me what the process/es were to create The Appalachian and Ozark Ranges? What is it that geologists "claim"?

Do you not think that I have already given this study?

 

Yes, I am more concerned with accuracy. That is the reason for this discussion. And, if YOU have any concern for accuracy you may want to give further study into this hypothesis, as there is NO other mechanism available that will produce the structures presented!

 

This, then gives me concern over a couple of your statements. Can you not understand that this had to be an instantaneous catastrophic event? Huge amounts of solid tectonic plate can not be slowly seperated in this manner by convection. I do not claim that convection is not another driving force, but it was NOT the initial mechanism...

Calculations are currently vague estimates [-get a study group!!!]

 

If you put in the study [think outside 'the little box'], you will all see that every detail points to an impact scenario :-]

 

["...attempt to refute damn near the entire body of geological sciences..."] :-] I like that!

Then, help me to find the evidence "...that disproves our hypothesis...", as I have been unable! ;-]

Edited October 2, 2013 by Kalopin

[JMJones0424]

Yes, I believe the Moon impacted the Earth and on more than a couple/few occassions [probably very similar processes with Vindian, Rodinia,...]. It appears the impactor in this case would need that amount of circumference, [approx.] and in Earth's orbit [explains details]. It just matches the amount of force needed. I have supposed it could have been a comet or large asteroid, but the size of the eastern coast of the U.S., the length of The Smoky and Appalachian Mountain Ranges, the size of The Mediterranean all points to a Lunar [Moon] impact.

 

There's a lot of claims here, but yet again, no evidence. Please show your calculations for the amount of delta v necessary to move the moon from a relatively stable orbit to one that impacts the Earth. Please show your calculations that show that the impactor needs to have a circumference roughly similar to that of the moon's. Please show your calculations for the amount of force needed.

 

Have you read about the giant impact hypothesis origin of the moon?

[Kalopin]

There's a lot of claims here, but yet again, no evidence. Please show your calculations for the amount of delta v necessary to move the moon from a relatively stable orbit to one that impacts the Earth. Please show your calculations that show that the impactor needs to have a circumference roughly similar to that of the moon's. Please show your calculations for the amount of force needed.

 

Have you read about the giant impact hypothesis origin of the moon?

 

The hypothesis for the creation of the Moon, I believe, is just the first in a series of Lunar impacts. The Moon did not achieve stable orbit until after several impacts and the releasing of almost all of the moon's hydrogen and oxygen. The first impact was the most catastrophic. Then, I believe the Moon had time to gather the ice and dust before another, much 'softer" probably an ocean impact, that would not have been enough to push it out to a safe orbit but was enough to collect the H2O, Earth having a much greater gravitational pull, and then a final, somewhat harder impact. This time no ice on the Moon and a solid, dry land impact to form The Mediterranean Sea and finally send the Moon into its much more stable orbit we have today. This scenario explains most details in the early formation of our planet and its moon.

 

I have put in several different calculations that appear easily viable- try your hand: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/ [have used this site MANY times, but remember there are a lot more intracacies and variables involved concerning terrestrial impacts!] ;-]

[Kalopin]

I have just recieved a warning for "failure to back up claims".

What claims have I failed to back up?

What backing do you all have for the claims of present theories?

 

Let us measure the percentage of possibilities!

You have all been quite entertaining, but have shown serious disregard for facts and any reasonable investigation.

To become a scientist you must all learn how to learn, study every detail and realize each implication. As to my opinion? I have serious reservations concerning your levels of understanding.

 

For those that may have an interest to further investigate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plate_interactions Please give study to how every single interaction emanates out from The Mediterranean Sea. Just as a baseball breaking a windshield, the design of the surrounding topography and seismic faulting shows the signs of this impact. Seperating The Strait of Gibraltar for the U.S eastern seaboard pushes The Saudi Arabian Peninsula back together and brings each land mass to join in proper position. This impact gives reason for The Indian Plate to move to the north at more than 20 cm a year to form The Himalayas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Plate . It did not follow ocean currents or Earth's rotation, as all the continents were slammed, like breaking a set of balls on a pool table. You will find there to be no other mechanism able to accomplish this. Antarctica and Australia were sent off the main continent and against Earth's rotation in the same manner and is easy to see with a quick study to a satellite view. B)

 

Thanks for your time... :-]

Edited October 7, 2013 by Kalopin

[Kalopin]

Please confirm the dating you are assigning to this event. Then, if you would, offer one piece of evidence in support of your specualtion.

"The last time the Moon impacted the Earth was approximately 12,900 years ago",

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3677428/    

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831451/

 

What force could deposit 10 million tonnes of impact spherules over four continents?

Why were nanodiamonds formed at way too high temperatures to be any airburst or serial impact?

 

All the evidence is in, it is just waiting to be understood:

The Moon impacted the Mediterranean sea to start the Holocene, a comet struck the Hudson bay to end the Clovis culture and a meteor impacted the Mississippi embayment on December 16, 1811 to cause the New Madrid earthquake sequence...

 

see- http://able2know.org/topic/224693-1 and go through each link and every detail, determine its accuracy, feel free to inform me of any inconsistencies and...

Please help to correct our science and history and change student curriculum.

Thanks ;-]

Edited March 22, 2015 by Kalopin

[CraigD]

"The last time the Moon impacted the Earth was approximately 12,900 years ago",

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3677428/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831451/

Neither of these articles support your strange claim that the Moon impacted the Earth approximately 12,900 years ago.

 

In “Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago”, Wittke, Napier, Firestone et al hypothesize

The impactor was most likely an asteroid or comet greater than several hundred meters in diameter with maximum size unknown, but probably less than several kilometers in diameter. The impactor most likely broke apart in solar orbit before encountering Earth, as do most comets (64), including Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9, which impacted Jupiter as multiple fragments, the largest of which was ∼1 km in diameter. When fragments of the YDB impactor entered Earth’s atmosphere, they fragmented even further, yielding multiple atmospheric airbursts that each produced shock fronts.

The Moon has a diameter of about 3476 kilometers, much larger that the upper limit proposed by Wittke et al.

 

In “Younger Dryas impact model confuses comet facts, defies airburst physics”, Bosley et al disagree with Wittke et al’s hypothesis. Although this paper doesn’t offer alternatives, presumably they support the more widely accepted Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which proposes a single or a few larger ground impacts.

 

The chief problem with this more accepted hypothesis, which Wittke et al’s hypothesis proposed to fix, is that such an impact should have left an identifiable crater, but no such crater has been found.

 

The only credible scientific hypotheses for an impact between the Earth and the Moon of which I’m aware is the Giant Impact hypothesis. In this hypothesis, the impact occurs not a mere 12,900 years ago (the Younger Dryas event), but 4,500,000,000 year ago, and is much larger than the YD event. The YD extinction event was only partial (in particular, it didn’t kill all of us humans. The Giant Impact is hypothesized to have extinguished any life on Earth, which is confirmed by biology, which finds no evidence of Life prior to about 4,000,000,000 years ago.

 

see- http://able2know.org/topic/224693-1 and go through each link and every detail, determine its accuracy, feel free to inform me of any inconsistencies and...

This is link to a “conspiracy theory” thread in another internet forum, in which you make claims similar to those you make in this “strange claims” thread. The members of that forum appear to me to have done an adequate job of pointing out that your claims are inconsistent with science.

 

Kalopin, I think you should follow JMJones’s suggestion to

Please show your calculations for the amount of delta v necessary to move the moon from a relatively stable orbit to one that impacts the Earth. Please show your calculations that show that the impactor needs to have a circumference roughly similar to that of the moon's. Please show your calculations for the amount of force needed.

This is a fairly simple exercise in orbital mechanics. You can find the reference you need for a first approximation calculation at the Wikipedia article “Hohmann transfer orbit”. If you actually do this work, I believe you’ll demonstrate to yourself that there is no plausible mechanism for the scenario you propose.

[Kalopin]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-maya-maze.html   [sorry, troubled link- please search "Portal to Maya underworld found in Mexico" @National Geographic, Alex Okeowo, August 22, 2008]

alt. link: http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/portal-to-maya-underworld-found-in-mexico 

 

Xibalba- the Mayan underworld is proof for this impact, as these man-made structures were not built within caves and underwater but were covered by the ejecta blanket...

 

your physics is badly flawed...

the microspherules examined by Boslough contain nanodiamonds that form at over 2200* celsius- way too high a temperature for any airburst or serial impactors...and cover four continents...

 

the Moon was not in a stable orbit during the Pleistocene, it was closely orbiting Earth and blocking the Sunlight on daytime passes, causing an ice age, [see ice core data] until it came in from low orbit and impacted where the Mediterranean sea now exists because of planetary imbalance...

At impact the Moon released its plasma over where the Black sea now is, impacted the Mediterranean, folded an entire tectonic plate in upon itself, creating the Marianas trench and pushed the entire continental shelf down, raising it at the mid-Atlantic ridge, allowing it to engulf a huge slab of plate that was torn away, known as the Farallon plate and this sent the Moon out to a more stable orbit, leaving a better balanced planet...

 

Understand this is the only object with enough mass, volume, density, weight,...[and in orbit-further slowing its approach-along with electromagnetic repulsion] to accomplish the design and formation process for every single detail in the geography...and this scenario describes every detail concerning the loss of megafauna and megaflora that existed during the Pleistocene-

 

As this impact not only caused mass extinction and killed off the rest of the dinosaurs, but slowed the outer plates and mantle down in relation to the faster spinning crystallized inner core, increasing gravity, electromagnetism and the length of Earth's day [approx. 34min.] making it impossible for animals and plants to achieve such sizes or live as long...

 

Study every detail and see how this will explain the satellite views, historical accounts, loss of such diversity and larger plants and animals and the loss of our history and accumulated technologies...

 

Yes, the pyramids and obelisks are the remnants of a free and wireless power grid...

 

I welcome any evidence to challenge my hypotheses, as I have studied this many years now and have gone over every detail- there is no other option. The evidence is clear and is just waiting for everyone to understand... [faulty physics is no rebuttal]

please let me know what you find...

 

[would it really be so strange to understand that the most technologically advanced era in this planet's history, so far, was actually during the Pleistocene?]

Edited March 24, 2015 by Kalopin

[Moontanman]

When planetary sized object collide, really when anything hits the Earth, it does not bounce, if the Moon or Moon sized body approached the Earth closely the Moon would have broken up into many tiny pieces. Whenever two objects collide energy is released, if a body as large as 300 kilometers collided with the earth it would melt the entire crust down to several miles, no cave or anything else would have been deep enough to shelter even microbes much less people. If a body as big as the Moon impacted our planet 12,000 years ago the surface of the earth would still be molten rock and quite possibly still be a gaseous silicate atmosphere.

[Kalopin]

When planetary sized object collide, really when anything hits the Earth, it does not bounce, if the Moon or Moon sized body approached the Earth closely the Moon would have broken up into many tiny pieces. Whenever two objects collide energy is released, if a body as large as 300 kilometers collided with the earth it would melt the entire crust down to several miles, no cave or anything else would have been deep enough to shelter even microbes much less people. If a body as big as the Moon impacted our planet 12,000 years ago the surface of the earth would still be molten rock and quite possibly still be a gaseous silicate atmosphere.

 

Sure, that's what current physics suggests. That is the belief... now go and see how this conclusion was arrived...

 

Currently it is believed that Chicxulub crater is big enough to have killed off all the dinosaurs and, I guess, to spread a layer of iridium around the entire planet, from just a 180km diameter crater, but there are many craters that size and anyone should be able to realize that would not be a big enough impact to cause this amount of destruction.

...But the Moon impacting will describe [most] every detail in Earth's geography and would be plenty strong enough to produce such an outcome...

 

Please see "Pyramids in the Meltrock"[Holocene/Lunar impact event] @thunderbolts.info ,...and search- "Eleven things that NASA discovered about the Moon that you never knew" http://www.nairaland.com/1859143/11-things-nasa-discovered-moon  [-notice link was moved from original?]

 

Every detail backs the hypothesis that the Moon is the leftover, crystallized iron, inner core from a once habitable planet from a now defunct solar system that was travelling in front of this one and whose star had went supernova...

It appears these iron cores have a strong attraction to stars and inner solar systems, allowing for this to be quite commonplace...

This would mean that Earth's moon is a terraforming harmonic balancer and has been changing this planet's geography since its arrival...

...and received little punishment when impacting Earth's oceans and much softer outer plates...

 

this last time the Moon impacted it bent an entire tectonic plate and folded it [to form the Mississippi embayment and all the faults beneath],this acted as a 'springboard' ...and the Moon was coming in from close orbit, it is my belief, with a certain amount of retrograde spin and a certain amount of electromagnetic repulsion, further slowing and controlling force of impact. So the direction, angle, force, attributes,...need to all be taken into consideration, as there are so many variables with every single impact...

 

Please understand this is the only scenario to describe the observable evidence. After studying every detail, it has become obvious [to me] that current physics and several dating processes are badly flawed.

So far, there has been no one with enough courage to admit these facts [until now] ...and, it appears, there are very few willing to help correct science and history?...