For starters, I do not think that much if any water came in with the comet impact of 12,900 BP. So far i am satisfied that there was one impact and that that impact ended the Northern Ice Age by directly shifting the crust itself in just the right way. This then released as much Ice as we have today in Antarctica. The whole Arctic Basin was a natural ice trap and could easily have held all that ice as well as what was clearly on land.
What is missing in his analysis is that the crust shifted and lands did subside and rise. Thus deep river systems. The purported impact zone is far too large and would have been non survivable. The heat shock alone would have destroyed every thing. I had actually despaired of finding any such impact zone until i put together the polar impact. That could be made small enough and be also cushioned to avoid global extinction.
Meanwhil his discovery of chevrons completely supports my work as i am looking for them as well.
I recently shared it with several prominent geologists. I apologize for its length, but it should be worth your time. The email is followed by several items from a presentation that I gave to a group in California in September 2015. In that presentation I incorporated several items from the local region that support the assertion that there was a worldwide flood.
These are identical perspectives of the impact site available to everyone with a computer and Google Earth. The upper is the standard view with superimposed diameter measuring 2500 km; the middle is a bathymetry map depicting raised regions of deposits borne by the impacting object – the circle identifies the location of the nucleus remnants (RGB color scale corresponds to highest to lowest elevations); the lower view is a magnetic anomaly map (RGB scale corresponds with most to least intense susceptibilities). Magnetic anomalies extend 1500 km to the northeast through the impact crescent’s gap. We note that the maps constitute data that had not been available to geologists or other scientists until recently.
To anyone but a trained geologist the noticeable, meandering features are submerged river drainage systems.
Submarine geomorphologists (and other geologists) conjecture that turbidity flows carved these submerged drainages because to them there was never a worldwide flood. But it is an absolute, physical impossibility for any flow to remain focused and energetic at the depths and distances involved to carve these structures. Geologists are fitting data to theory, and that is the practice of anti-science, or fantasy. Also, ascribing the structures’ creation to subsurface flows is the confusion of cause and effect: whatever turbidity flows that have been observed near these structures are consequences of the structures, post submersion, and certainly not their creation mechanism. To think that subsurface processes carved these features is equivalent to believing that all celestial bodies orbit the Earth.
Now here is a three-color GIS-produced map (model) of pre-flood Earth (blue = former seas; tan = formerly exposed landscapes; yellow = presently exposed landscapes) created by removing more than 3 km water from Earth’s surface:
Note the formerly exposed region to the west of South America, particularly its western extent, in the GIS-model, and compare it to Churchward’s Mu.
Explaining the heat map is obvious in the context of the worldwide flood: peoples inhabiting Mu shared a common ancestry, and descendants of flood survivors in Australia and regional Pacific islands are DNA-linked to descendants of flood survivors in South America. (By the way, the hypothesis that human migrations to the Americas via some land bridge near the Arctic Circle is wholly invalidated by this map.)
From the voyage report:
3. Evidence from coastal California also demonstrates what the worldwide floodwaters did to the local ecosystem. The following image is an overhead view of the Salinas Valley, not far from where I am writing this. It was once a lakebed, and the former water level can be discerned on each side of what is now the valley. This region was once two miles above the former sea level, and uplifted winds condensed to create persistent rains that eroded the hills and filled the lake (these waters would eventually drain to the northwest, and energy acquired in the two+ mile fall back down the shelf is what carved Monterey Canyon). The arrow points to the only (intermittent) stream in the valley, carving its way 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 erosion looks like.
4. Not far to the south of Carmel, CA, is the Big Sur region, a part of which is shown below in a Google Earth image. Two nearly identical valleys are circled, one far below the present ocean surface and the other subaerial (the submerged feature is far too deep to have been covered by melt waters from the last ice age). The valleys have nearly identical dimensions (vertically and horizontally). Under Geology’s “no flood” paradigm, this would imply that subsurface erosive processes are identical to subaerial erosive processes, an absurdity when one considers the immense density differences between the media. The only way that the two features could be so similar is if the now submerged feature was subaerially carved and then later submerged.
5. Rocks in the surf, those protruding from the beach, and those well above the beach (foreground) all show identical erosion. This would be impossible had the rocks in the ocean been exposed to pounding surf for eons. The relatively recent introduction of the ocean waters accounts for the similarity in the wear of the various features – all the local formations were subjected to identical erosion for millions of years, and the upper layer of soil was removed by the recently introduced ocean waters, and the past 13,000 years of surf erosion has not created a discernible difference in the rock formations.
6. Having formed in the Oort Cloud, the outer layer of the impacting object was consistent with known comet composition: porous, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank” – descriptions from Prof. Michael A’Hearn, project lead of NASA’s Deep Impact mission into Comet Tempel 1. In the Oort Cloud where this object formed, gravitational accelerations induced by the solid, inner core nucleus were less than 1% of Earth’s. Aggregations forming the impacting object’s outer water-ice and debris shell made it more massive than its core, yet accelerations induced by the entire object were on the order of 2% of Earth’s. These comparatively small accelerations explain why the impacting object was so loosely packed, porous, and fragile, as well as why its impact effects on the Earth were far less damaging than what might be expected from a similarly sized but solid object.
12 thoughts on “‘A Letter to Profs’: Striking new geological evidence for the worldwide flood roughly 12,800 years ago”