Essay 3

By Ben Fischler

There are six erroneous geological assertions which argue against my theory of how impacts have shaped the Earth … three major and three minor assertions.

According to these erroneous assertions, my theory could not possibly operate the way in which I say it does. Therefore, my theory has to be wrong, according to institutional geological reasoning.

No. These assertions are not correct within the context of my arguments.

None of these erroneous assertions are integral to general geological theory. Rather, these erroneous assertions have been developed over the years as mechanisms to explain various geological phenomena that exist. However, there are nuances and exceptions to these assertions that need to be accounted for.

Just as Albert Einstein corrected Sir Issac Newton's theories relating to the difference in the perception of time at very high speeds (scientists have to allow for this in getting the proper GPS readings from satellite bounce-back transmission waves), I will correct these six geological assertions for situations of extreme impacts. I will present evidence supporting the need for my corrections. All of the references (seen below) to "chapters" are to my detailed book on an updated antipodal focusing theory, found at


1. NOTHING CAN MOVE THROUGH THE MANTLE AT MORE THAN ONE INCH PER YEAR — Certainly if this is always true then there could not be a contemporaneous mantle plume reaching the underside of the lithosphere as the consequence of a major impact. While I would agree that this "one inch per year" seems to describe normal behavior, I believe that things change in the event of a major impact and its resulting extreme vibration that loosens the holding power of friction (which is the only reason that movement is retarded in the mantle). Chapter 1.3 of provides more detail on the temporary loosening of friction under extreme vibration, while Chapter 1.4 provides specific examples of antipodal volcanism in all six of the recognized major impacts of the past 150 million years.

CONCLUSION: This geological assertion needs a notable exception for major impacts. In the case of major impacts, a mantle plume can reach the underside of the lithosphere in a very short time, even leading to contemporaneous volcanism if the plume head is large enough to include the crushed surface at the focused antipode of the impact (see Chapters 1.3 and 1.4).

2. IMPACTS DO NOT PENETRATE THE EARTH'S SURFACE AND CONTINUE INTO THE MANTLE — If major impacts do not penetrate the Earth's crust and travel into the mantle, then there won't be the focused energy needed to create a mantle plume. Certainly, smaller impacts don't have the power to penetrate the Earth's crust. But major impacts are a different story. Chapter 1.3 of details how the high speed of an asteroid impact makes all the difference when dealing with a large impact object. Actual military results of shaped charge explosions can be scaled up to prove that impact penetration can occur. Furtermore, mascons (concentrations of mass from much heavier mantle material filling a penetration hole) have been located in Eastern Antarctica (Permian extinction) and southern Georgia (End-Cretaceous extinction).

CONCLUSION: This geological assertion needs a notable exception for major impacts. In the case of a major impact, the impact object can penetrate the Earth's crust, thus delivering much of its energy to the mantle and causing a focused mantle plume to shoot up to the underside of the Earth's crust somewhere near the opposite side of the Earth (see Chapter 1.3).

3. INDIA WAS LOCATED 4,000 MILES FROM THE ANTIPODE OF THE ASTEROID IMPACT 66 MYA — If India were located 4,000 miles from the antipode (the exact opposite side of the Earth) of the dinosaur-killing impact 66 MYA, then the Deccan traps (the huge outpouring of lava) that occurred at virtually the same time, could not have been an antipodal event.

This assertion is just plain wrong. The Deccan traps WERE antipodal to the huge impact 66 MYA.

The common assertion that India was 4,000 miles away from the antipode is based upon a convenient but incorrect assumption about how India arrived in Asia. It is commonly assumed that East Antarctica and Australia moved to the east from Africa 200+ MYA, while India stayed in the same place until 70 MYA, when it started racing (geologically speaking) to the northeast, passing over the Reunion Island hotspot, thus creating the Deccan traps. There are two problems with this. First, the area around the traps shows no planar doming, as is customary when a hotspot melts its way to the surface. Second, the hotspot is located at 19° south latitude. The volcanism of the Deccan traps was created at 30° south latitude.

The current theory handles these two problems by ignoring the lack of doming and saying that there was 11° of polar wander involved. Furthermore, there is the unresolved matter of the huge underlayment of volcanism on the whole western side of the peninsula of India from 66 MYA to 60 MYA with no seamounts or islands trailing after it, So, it looks like a hotspot and acts like a hotspot but then it disappears. What kind of phenomenon behaves like this?

The new theory has India traveling east with Australia and Eastern Antarctica starting 252 MYA, as one connected continent. Then the impact of 66 MYA fractures this continent at the antipode of the impact and creates a new Indian continent from the upper tail of the old continent and much of the surrounding seafloor. The antipodal mantle plume creates a prodigious hotspot at the Deccan traps. Then the hotspot continues down the western side of the Indian peninsula, creating an underlayment of volcanism from 66 MYA to 60 MYA at the tip. The trail of the hotspot continues, creating the Indonesian Islands and the western side of Java and Sumatra. This is detailed in Chapter 1.6 of, with further explanations and maps showing the movement of the tectonic plates over 66 million years in Chapter 2.2.

CONCLUSION: This geological assertion is just plain wrong. There is ample evidence to place India at the antipode of the dinosaur-killing impact 66 MYA (see Chapters 1.6 and 2.2).


1. HOTSPOTS DO NOT MOVE. TECTONIC PLATES PASS OVER THEM BUT THE HOTSPOTS HAVE NO DIRECTED MOTION OF THEIR OWN — Recently, geologists have begun to question this assertion. I assert that hotspots created by impacts have directed motion based upon the impact angle and the extent to which the impact was off-center (see Chapter 2.3).

Although one example of a hotspot trail moving contrary to other hotspot trails on the same tectonic plate would be enough to refute this minor geological assertion that hotspots have no directed motion, I can easily offer up two definitively contrary examples:

a. TRINDADE HOTSPOT TRAIL — Located between two hotspot trails that arc to the north, the Trindade hotspot trail heads directly east. I attribute this movement to the slow westerly motion of the hotspot, which is moving more slowly than the continent of South America, so it appears to be moving east by comparison (see Chapter 2.4).

b. EASTERN ANTARCTICA HOTSPOTS — There are two hotspots that are moving at almost right angles to each other. One involves the antipode of the Kara impact (see Chapter 1.4) and the other involves the antipode of the Manacouagan impact (see Chapter 2.6). CONCLUSION: Hotspots may sometimes be stationary, but there are definite instances when hotspots have their own directed motion.

2. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF AN IMPACT LANDSLIDE. HOW CAN IT CREATE SOMETHING AS HUGE AS THE GULF OF MEXICO? — I assert that the Gulf of Mexico was created by an impact landslide that was caused by an angled asteroid impact 66 MYA.

A landslide is merely the movement of earth in response to a directed force. Usually that force is gravity. In this case, the force is the horizontal force of the angled impact of the asteroid which contributes a percentage of the 2,000,000 H-bomb worth of impact energy to the equation.

On a much smaller scale, the Heart Mountain Landslide (see Chapter 2,5) shows how the movement of earth can move large blocks of stone as a result of gravity, affecting a mere 2% slope. It moved a large slab of Madison limestone about 1600 feet thick and over 400 square miles in area. Some of the resulting pieces of this slab were up to five miles across. The force of gravity involved with this movement was peanuts when compared to the horizontal component of the angled impact 66 MYA.

Also, the intact nature of the surface of the sliding blocks indicates how the shape of an impact crater could be preserved as it was pushed in directed motion. CONCLUSION: The power of the impact 66 MYA had more than enough horizontal power to move the limestone slabs involved with delaminating and opening up the proto-Gulf-of-Mexico (see Chapter 2.5)

3. WE ALREADY HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD THEORY THAT HANDLES THE CHICXULUB IMPACT. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE — I have to say that I actually heard this from a credentialed geologist!

First, you don't have a perfectly good theory. Second, even if you did, you should be looking for the best theory, rather than just something that seems to work okay. Let me address the second issue first.

In the 1600s, Dutch optics allowed people to make telescopes, which some people, notably Galileo Galilei, turned to the night sky. He saw the moons of Jupiter and realized that this was evidence that the heavens weren't perfect and the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Galileo championed the heliocentic model proposed by Copernicus.

The scientists of the day (the Catholic Church) declared that Galileo was guilty of heresy. He was confined to house arrest for publishing his findings. But don't feel sad for Galileo. After all, the Church did apologize 400 years later.

The Church said that they didn't need a new theory that contradicted their teachings. They said that the new theory would make no difference and should not be taught. Actually, the Church was right about the new theory making no difference. In a pre-industrial society, a geocentric model works as well as heliocentric model on a practical basis.

But that isn't the point of scientific inquiry. The purpose of scientific inquiry is to find the best theory that fits the evidence, not merely a theory that works well enough for every day consumption.

Thus, even in a pre-industrial society, scientists persisted in establishing the heliocentric view of the solar system, rather than merely accepting the old geocentric one. Thus, on the face of it this type of objection is spurious. Science wants to look at evidence and evaluate theories in light of the evidence. "We don't need another theory" is a non-reason.

Next, we will look at the claim that "we already have a perfectly good theory." WE DON'T. There are lots of holes in the current theory. And there are many of Earth's features that can be better explained by the new theory than by the current one. The holes in the current theory are covered in item #3 of the three major geological assertions. The features of the Earth that can be better explained by the new theory than by the current theory are to numerous to list here. They will be dealt with in depth in a separate section entitled "Why This New Theory Fits The Evidence Better Than The Current Theory."

CONCLUSION: We DON"T have a perfectly good theory. Furthermore, the current theory should not be afraid to be compared, on the basis of evidence, to any new theory (see Chapters 1.6 and 2.2).