THE NORTH AMERICAN
This chapter will piece together the story of the
next most recently created continental tectonic plate, Eastern North America.
As I was readying the first edition of this book, I forced myself to
look more closely at South America and its origins. Instead of finding an old
continent that was too old to explain, I found that South America didn't exist
as a separate continent until 132 MYA.
I had assumed that both North
America and South America were actually really old continents (some of their
craters date back well before 250 MYA) that had been conjoined with Eurasia
through the subduction mechanism and then were knocked away when the slow
motion crash of Siberia into Eurasia occurred approximately 200 MYA.
Now I had discovered that South America didn't even exist as a separate
continent until 132 MYA.
What about North America?
A COMPLICATED CONTINENT
Well, North America is complicated. Very complicated.
To begin with,
North America consists of a combination of parts of three different tectonic
First, there is the Eastern American Plate, which came into
existence approximately 202 MYA at the end-Triassic extinction. This plate
remained partially attached to the European Plate until it was completely
jolted loose by the Chicxulub impact 65 MYA. This Eastern American Plate moved
to the northwest (or moved somewhat north but mostly west at the lower
latitudes) until it ran into the tail end of the Siberian Plate.
makes the tail end of the Siberian Plate the next player in the drama. The
Siberian Plate had been moving north and west and splitting into three
different parts as it tried to make a hard left turn as it neared the North
Pole. It had been making this journey since 250 MYA.
By the time the
tail end of the Siberian Continent was finally reaching the middle latitudes
about 70 to 80 MYA, the relatively new Eastern North American Continent came
out of the east and ran into it, beginning the Laramide Orogeny (the raising up
of the high plains and the Rocky Mountains).
This tip of the Siberian
tail eventually broke off and remained lodged between the Eastern American
Plate and the San Andreas remnant land. The rest of the Siberian tail continued
north and northwest.
The third player in the drama is the remnant land
of the Pacific Plate. This remnant land is the western remainder of the part of
Pangaea that Siberia was taken from. At some point in the far distant past,
some continental land came from out of the west and was eventually tied to
Pangaea through the process of subduction. The Pacific Plate was the passive
creation of this process as it was formed from a mid-ocean ridge at the back
end of this eastward-moving continental tectonic mass. Therefore, the Pacific
Plate and the San Andreas remnant land were part of the same plate, just as
South America and the oceanic crust to the east of it (up to the mid-ocean
ridge) are part of the same plate.
Because the San Andreas remnant land
was too high to subduct, the Siberian Plate merely slid by it. When the
Siberian Plate ran into parts of the Pacific Plate that did not contain
remnants (the Farallon and Cocos Plates), it subducted them. In fact, these
mini-plates were actually pieces of the Pacific Plate that were torn away from
the Pacific Plate because it could not stretch enough to accommodate these two
forces acting in different directions.
THE EFFECTS OF THE CHICXULUB IMPACT
While most of this book deals with the antipodal effects of large
cosmic impacts on earth, this chapter also deals with the effects at the impact
The impact at Chicxulub is generally treated as an event
that did not change the shape of the land around it, except for creating the
After analyzing the New Madrid fault, the Sierra Madre
mountains, the shape of the North American Continent, the map of CAMP
structures in the area and the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean basin, I have
come to the conclusion that there is more to the actual Chicxulub impact than
meets the eye.
When looking at continental theory involving a "blob
with a tail," I have had difficulty with two continents:
1. EURASIA - I concluded that this large land
mass was the "vacuum cleaner" of planet earth, absorbing continents as the
subduction process inevitably brought continents together.
AMERICA - A blob with two tails. One tail was Mexico and Central America. The
other tail was Florida and the Bahamas. Furthermore, the largest earthquake in
North American history (New Madrid 1811 & 1812) occurred right in the
middle of the continental mass. What was this all about?
looking at several possible explanations, I finally realized that the two tails
might actually be one tail that had been split in two. The more I examined this
possibility, the more I found that this splitting option explained other
The crux of this splitting explanation is the idea that
the Chicxulub impact actually occurred slightly inside of a North American tail
that curved down sharply to the Florida area and the Bahamas.
Chicxulub impact is located today right on top of the northern "thumb" of the
Yucatan Peninsula. When examining the shape of this area (including the
continental shelf), we can see that there are several miles of land just under
the water to the north of the impact.
If the impact was actually
slightly in the interior of the meat of the tail of this reimagined North
American continent, the force of the impact could have caused the land to move
to the southwest (as explained previously, the impact object came out of the
This moving process would have unhinged a significant
amount of the tail, forcing it to move along with the crater area. The top edge
of the continental-shelf-thumb would have been originally located along the
panhandle of Florida prior to the impact 65 MYA.
The energy of the
impact forced this area to move to the southwest and form the beginnings of the
Gulf of Mexico. Over time, the ocean rounded out the ragged edges of the gaping
opening, creating the Gulf of Mexico as it exists today.
As the moving
impact site peeled off most of the lower tail to the south and west, it also
pulled down the western edge of the upper tail and the lower blob of Eastern
North America. This action stretched out the Sierra Madre mountains and created
a navigable (by land) high plain in the lower part of Arizona and New Mexico.
Furthermore, it stretched the
land and caused a partial rift in the middle of the lower U.S. as it pushed
that same land to the west. The rift did not extend all the way to the northern
border. Today the rift is covered with millenia of silt and provides the base
for the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, including the New Madrid
RAPID SURFACE MOVEMENT AT THE IMPACT
Most geologists would claim that it is impossible
for rapid surface movement to occur at the site of a large impact. They would
argue that study of impact craters shows that the area outside the crater
However, I am not talking about moving the
material on the surface. Rather, I am talking about moving the entire layer of
surface material as one big slab, leaving the actual surface material intact as
a unit. I am talking about moving slabs of delaminated crust from a position
below the surface level.
I am not talking about splitting the tectonic
plate. I am talking about merely sliding layers of crust in a specific
direction, leaving the tectonic plate intact underneath.
look at the less extreme example of the Chesapeake Bay impact. In this case,
the impact is coming from the northeast, hitting into the beginning of a
passive continental tectonic margin. The land that it hits has nowhere to go.
Even as the impact buries itself in the ground and pushes on the layers
of earth from beneath the surface, this land cannot easily break away and head
to the southwest. There is an entire continent in front of it.
my view, this delaminated surface land is pushed up over the land in front of
it, where it eventually comes to rest, sort of like a rug pushed up against a
wall. The extreme pressure of the impact would help these surface layers slide
over the lower rock by creating molten edges at the face of the sliding slab,
in the same way that this occurs in deep earthquakes.
There is even controversial evidence
that this scenario did, in fact, occur. The reason that this evidence is
controversial is due to the fact that the Standard Theory attributes this
occurrence to other factors.
The evidence itself consists of the Blue
Ridge Mountains and the surface land in front of them and behind them.
In the "Blue Ridge Parkway Geology Training Manual," Robert J. Lillie explains
the difference between the Western Appalachians and the Blue Ridge Mountains as
"In the western part of the Appalachians, the
rocks were originally part of North America ... while the Blue Ridge is a piece
of the deeper, hard crust that was uplifted and shoved westward. Farther east,
however, the rocks formed elsewhere and were attached (or "accreted") to the
edge of North America as the ocean closed ... Rocks beneath young sediments of
Georgia and the Carolinas are thus stranded pieces of Africa, left behind when
the Atlantic opened."
"During the late stages of continental collision
the sedimentary rocks of the Valley and Ridge Province (between the Blue Ridge
Mountains and the Western Appalachians) were detached from the hard rocks
underneath and pushed westward. The strata were compressed, deforming in two
different ways. Analogous to a rug being pushed across a floor (or squeezing an
accordian), a series of anticlines and synclines developed."
Lillie goes on to describe the
debate between "thick skinners," who believed that it was downwarping and
vertical lift that caused the mountains, and the "thin skinners," who believed
that there was a long area of horizontal detachment that extended from the
coast to the base of the Western Appalachians. Lillie states:
"The implication of this interpretation was that
hard rocks at the surface were pushed westward tens, and maybe even hundreds,
of miles over North America." 106pg18
In the late 1970s, seismic reflection profiles were
recorded for this area. Lillie recounts the resulting victory of the "thin
"The profiles revealed that thrust faults
merged with a nearly horizontal (detachment) zone above basement rocks in the
Valley and Ridge Province. Strong reflections from the detachment zone were
traced eastward, entirely beneath the Blue Ridge and part of the Piedmont. It
was thus demonstrated that the Blue Ridge and Piedmont were thrust westward in
a thin-skinned fashion over the North American continent."
A similar geological story is
told by Lynn s. Fichter and Steve J. Baedke in "The Geological Evolution of
Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region - A Description of the Geology of
Lillie attributes this horizontal movement of
crust to long-ago pressure from reunion with Africa in the formation of Pangaea
prior to 250 MYA. Fichter and Baedke don't discuss the timing, but it is safe
to assume that most geologists would agree with Lillie ... after all, they
don't have another mechanism available.
As far as I can tell,
geologists are saying that we have a unique reaction to a convergent boundary
here. In no other place in the world do convergent boundaries behave like this.
In other places, convergent boundaries rapidly raise up mountains (which is why
the "thick-skinners" took that stance).
But here, it's different. Well,
maybe there's a reason that its different.
What if there were another
force that could cause horizontal movement at surface layers of the earth? What
if that force came out of the northeast at an angle of 30 degrees to 45 degrees
and burrowed down into the earth's surface at or below the level of those
layers and exerted tremendous shock impact in a direction to the south and
west? What if that force were equivalent to the energy of thousands of hydrogen
All of the above questions relate to characteristics of the
Chesapeake Bay impact 35.5 MYA. If, as a recent Princeton study claims, the
Chicxulub impact hit with the energy impact of 2,000,000 hydrogen bombs, then
the Chesapeake Bay impact, though smaller, probably had an energy impact
equivalent of at least hundreds of thousands of hydrogen bombs. A significant
portion of this directional energy could have been transferred to the basement
area of these surface layers, moving them inland (and mostly to the south and
west). It is likely that the original site of the Chesapeake Bay impact may
have been to the north and east of the present crater, after allowing for all
of the sliding involved.
The Piedmont and the Blue Ridge Mountains are
mostly located to the west and south of the Chesapeake Bay impact site. The
Blue Ridge Mountains end in northern Georgia. The Piedmont ends in mid-Georgia.
If the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Mountains were pushed up and moved by a
collision with Africa, why wouldn't they extend farther to the south? Why would
they be so truncated in the north? Why would they happen to be just in the
right location and in the right shape to have been moved by the force of a
large impact that just happened to be moving in that direction? see map
A recent article entitled "How river networks move across a
landscape" by Jennifer Chu of Science Daily on 3/3/14 summarizes work by
Willett, Mccoy, Perron, Goren and Cehn published by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. While this work mostly deals with the changing nature of river
networks, it has unusual relevance to the movement of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Jennifer Chu writes:
"What was most surprising to Perron was what is
likely occurring in the southeastern United States. While the landscape, which
stretches from northern Florida to Virginia, has not experienced much tectonic
activity for hundreds of millions of years, the group's map suggests that river
networks in these areas are on the move. From their results, the researchers
find that the Blue Ridge Escarpment is moving inland, and essentially dragging
behind it river basins, slowly stretching them across the landscape."
I realize that the canon of
geological theory does not recognize this sort of rapid surface movement as a
result of a large impact to be valid. But, sometimes, you just have to question
the accepted canon.
So, why am I spending the time to question this
aspect of the geological canon when it doesn't seem to be very important to my
theory? After all, my theory doesn't really hinge upon the events that occurred
at the site of the Chesapeake Bay impact 35.5 MYA.
But my theory does
have quite a bit to say about what happened at the Chicxulub impact site. I
hypothesize that the initial impact at Chicxulub was somewhere between southern
Georgia or Alabama and Panama City in the Florida panhandle, which would have
been near 30 degrees north latitude 65 MYA, and would have been somewhat
inland, but near the coast of Eastern North America. The Chicxulub impact would
have burrowed down into the earth and moved intact surface layers from Florida
to an area south and west of there.
Unlike the Chesapeake Bay impact,
there was no continent in the way to stop these delaminated surface layers from
moving. They moved to a spot near their present location, where they formed the
nascent Gulf of Mexico and the beginnings of Mexico and the Central American
Although I can show some elements of corroboration for this
scenario, I did not have any geological evidence to show that this kind of
intact surface movement had ever occurred in the past ... until I examined the
Chesapeake Bay impact closely.
However, this type of
large slab of material moving mostly as an intact mass can happen in some very
large landslides. Geology.com reports on the largest known landslide that ever
occurred. Known as the Heart Mountain Landslide, it happened 50 million years
ago in northwestern Wyoming. The article says: "The slide occurred when a large
slab of Madison Limestone, about 1600 feet thick and over 400 square miles in
area, became detached and slid down a gradual slope that had average slope of
less than two degrees. As the limestone slab moved it broke into many smaller
pieces. Today over 100 pieces of the slab are scattered across an area of about
1300 square miles. Some of these blocks are up to five miles across and many of
them have been buried by volcanic material."
This huge slab landslide
occurred without the help of giant amounts of energy imparted by a large,
burrowing, cosmic impact. While I am arguing for a much bigger result than this
landslide, I am also pointing out that there was much, much more energy
A quick examination of the Kara crater 70 MYA also
shows some strange anomalies that may support intact surface movement, as well.
According to paper published by Koeberl, Sharpton, Harrison, Sandwell, Murali
and Burke entitled "The Kara/Ust-Kara twin impact structure; A large-scale
impact event in the late Cretaceous," the Kara crater (with a pre-erosion size
of 65 km) had a shadow twin crater of approximately the same size located in
the Kara sea, just to the north and east of the Kara crater.
calls this situation a rare twin impact event. To me, this looks more like a
single event with a deeper impact crater at the original impact site, causing
the intact surface to move to the south and west. The result would look like
two separate impacts at almost the same spot. 129
this entire concept of rapid intact surface movement due to a large impact will
be controversial. But I believe that it explains too much about the formation
of North America to just ignore it.
OLD SPREADING RIDGES SEEN
A recent article in Live
Science details radar views from space that allow scientists to "see through"
the sea floor sediment to the rocky features beneath.
The floor of the
Gulf of Mexico shows the remains of spreading ridges between the Chicxulub
impact site and the U.S. shoreline along the Florida Gulf Coast. This kind of
tear in the crust is just what one might expect to see if a strong force moved
a big hunk of material from the U.S. coast to the south and west.
space radar image also showed some tears in the surface underneath sediment at
the southern edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Again, this type of tear is just what
one would expect if a force began folding up the Yucatan Peninsula as it moved
Mexico and the upper part of Central America to the south and west.
FINDING THE ORIGINAL
CHICXULUB IMPACT SITE
claimed that the Chicxulub impact object actually hit the Earth significantly
farther to the northeast of the current Chicxulub site at an angle of maybe 30*
to vertical. I then claimed that the angled impact of this impact object caused
the top layer of the earth to delaminate and to be pushed southeast to
approximately its present location at 21° latitude. I call this an "impact
landslide," in that this top layer moves but remains mostly intact, as do some
of the bigger landslides caused by water and the force of
This interpretation is supported by
four important details:
1. THE MAYA BLOCK
- The limestone features of the Maya block in the Yucatan area of Mexico are
very similar to the limestone found in Florida, but not similar to other
geology found in Mexico or Central America.
2. BURIED FISSURES - Recent aerial penetrating radar images
reveal unexplained old fissures along the Gulf of Mexico
the kind of
fissures that could be caused by a massive impact landslide such as this.
3. LATITUDE OF DECCAN VOLCANISM - Since I also claim that the Deccan
volcanism 66 MYA occurred at the exact antipode of the original Chicxulub
impact, and since the volcanism occurred at 30* south latitude, the current
location of 21* north latitude would be off by 9*
that's a lot of polar
wander to assume. A more northern initial impact site would make more sense.
4. CAMP REMNANTS - Some geological maps of
the CAMP (Central Atlantic Magmatic Provinces) include a small area of the
Yucatan peninsula. This could make sense if the impact landslide brought some
of the CAMP material from Georgia or Alabama with it. Otherwise, CAMP material
on the Yucatan is unexplainable, although it is possible that the volcanic evidence could have been scraped off of western Cuba as the material for the Yucatan Peninsula was being pushed to the southwest. Dating the material would tell us what the source was.
these details paint a quite compelling picture to me, I can recognize the
probability that they would not be nearly as compelling to mainstream
geologists, especially since most of them would consider the latitude of the
Deccan volcanism to be irrelevant, because they would not consider the Deccan
volcanism and the Chicxulub impact to be related (as I do). Therefore, finding
the original impact site for the dinosaur-killing asteroid would be of great
assistance in bolstering my theory.
couldn't locate it. I was expecting to find a "mascon" (a mass concentration of
heavier mantle material) that would ooze into the void created by the
penetrating asteroid, just as scientists find impact mascon areas on the moon
and at the 250 mile wide impact area in Antarctica that probably relates to the
Permian extinction impact and the Siberian volcanism 252 MYA. But, I couldn't
find a mascon.
I couldn't find a crater,
either. I had expected to find the bottom half of a crater or something like
it, located somewhere to the northeast of the Chicxulub site. There wasn't any
crater that I could find. I assumed that my lack of success in finding a mascon
or a crater was a function of my inability to find the right maps or the right
turns out that this last assumption was wrong. There was an answer to the
problem, but it would take an entirely different approach to find it. This new
approach involved onions
specifically Vidalia onions.
HOW VIDALIA ONIONS SOLVED
Recently, a scientific expedition did some drilling at and
around the site of the Chicxulub crater. When they examined the drill cores,
they found that there was no sulfur at all in the crater. However, they did
find a significant amount of sulfur (mostly in gypsum deposits - Ca SO4(2h2O))
in areas ouside of the crater.
Naturally, this led to the
conclusion that all of the sulfur within the area of the crater was vaporized.
Using the area outside of the crater as a stand-in for what must have been in
the area inside of the crater before the asteroid impact, they calculated that
some vast amount of sulfur was vaporized and sent into the upper atmosphere as
SO2. This is important because the SO2 would reflectively shield the Earth from
the sun's rays and cause a brutal worldwide cold spell that would last for 25
years, according to their calculations.
While I agree with their work
and their conclusions, I was struck by a completely different thought. My
thought was that if the top half of the crater (according to my theory) had no
sulfur left in it, then the bottom half of the crater at the original site
wouldn't have any sulfur left in it, either.
There were two more factors
that seemed strangely relevant here. First, I knew that onions cause bad breath
due to the sulfides that are trapped in the little pieces caught in your teeth
when you eat them. Second, I knew that there was a special area in Georgia that
grew Vidalia onions, which were famously sweet, rather than piquant.
it seemed like a long shot, I decided that it was worthwhile to explore the
characteristics of Vidalia onions and how they might relate to an original
impact site for the dinosaur-killing asteroid. Well, sometimes long shots pay
off big. This one did.
UNDERSTANDING VIDALIA ONIONS
So, off to Google I went. I found out that Vidalia onions are
only grown in a specific part of southern Georgia.This area is roughly circular
and roughly 120 miles in diameter.
I also found out that Vidalia
onions are sweet onions that lack the "bite" that even normal sweet onions
contain. People can cut up Vidalia onions without the usual tears that result
from the the sulfides being released into the air.
Vidalia onions receive a
premium price in the marketplace because of their sweetness and lack of bite.
This premium price has led to the State of Georgia legally designating only a
specific area in Georgia as being allowed to call their onions by the name of
Vidalia onions. Therefore, when you look at the map of the official Vidalia
onion growing area (see Site Location Map)), it is important to remember that
the border lines have been drawn with one eye on agricultural reality and the
other eye on politics.
There are three important characteristics involved with the
growing of Vidalia onions. These are:
1. VARIETY - It has to be a
specific type of sweet yellow onion.
2. CLIMATE - It has to be
grown in a climate with mild winters.
3. SOIL - It has to be grown
in soil that has a very low sulfur content. Onions that are grown outside of
the Vidalia growing area are generally too strong due to the onion's natural
tendency to absorb sulfur.
FINDING THE ORIGINAL IMPACT
All of this is well and
good, but it still doesn't produce a mascon or a crater
but it will.
Let's look at a geological map of Georgia and
Florida. Almost all of Florida and most of southern Georgia is composed of
limestone. However, there is an area of southern Georgia that is composed of
sandstone and sand. The sandstone is generally found in the Vidalia onion
growing area and also somewhat to the southwest of that area.
Let's remember how sandstone
by subjecting sand to pressure over time.
Now let's consider what could
happen if the original impact site of the Chicxulub asteroid were in the
Vidalia onion growing area. The original impact of the asteroid coming out of
the northeast could cause a huge impact landslide moving to the southwest. The
surface of the Earth would delaminate, causing a significant amount of the top
of the crust to move onto the continental shelf and beyond, opening up a
proto-Gulf of Mexico. The material at the impact site, itself, both in the
moving top of the crater and the left-behind bottom, would be vaporized.
could have a crater (the bottom half) at the original impact site. However, the
crater would almost immediately be filled by ocean sand and ocean floor rubble
from the gigantic tsunamis that would be caused not only by the impact, itself,
but also by the opening of the proto-Gulf of Mexico. The tsunamis would have
been huge. They would bring ocean sand and ocean floor rubble well into the
interior of the Georgia and Florida coastlines and fill up the original crater
site in and near the Vidalia onion growing area.
Later on, when the magma from
the mantle attempted to create a mascon at this site of the original impact, it
would find that the crater had already been filled by the ocean sand and ocean
floor rubble. So, what we would see today would be a circular magmatic
intrusion that was stopped by the ocean sand. And that is, in fact, what we
have. The circular intrusion is seen on the gravity anomaly map, very near and
actually into the officially designated Vidalia onion growing area.
sand in the crater, reacting to the pressure of the weight of the sand from
above and the magmatic intrusion from below, became the sandstone that exists
with a notable lack of sulfur, compared to the limestone rock that
surrounds it. I include some maps that will help to visualize the features that
I am writing about. These are:
INTRUSION MAPS - These two small maps show the evidence of magmatic intrusions
in the specific area near and including the official Vidalia onion growing
area, based upon two different measures. These measures are magnetic readings
and gravometric anomalies. The scientist involved with interpreting these
results attributes the readings to a Triassic mafic volcano complex. Without
any other contrary evidence, this interpretation would seem reasonable, since
the volcanism is buried beneath quite a bit of supposedly younger material.
However, I am presenting new evidence. This new evidence will turn this
interpretation on its head. The new evidence will place the younger material
(the magmatic intrusions) below the older material (the sandstone).
LOCATION MAP - I include a map of the State of Georgia with the location site
of two important features so that the original impact position can be easily
visualized. The two location sites are: a. The officially designated Vidalia
onion growing area in Georgia, outlined in pink. b. The site of the
gravometrically determined magmatic intrusions drawn up in black.
MAP OF GEORGIA - I include a geological map of the State of Georgia so that the
reader can see that the peculiar sandstone area(as opposed to limestone)
encompasses both the magmatic intrusions site and the official Vidalia onion
It is obvious from the Site
Location Map that the magmatic intrusions are not in the center of the official
Vidalia onion growing area. However, the magmatic intrusions border that area
and some part of them is actually inside that area. Furthermore, the magmatic
intrusions are all within the sandstone (as opposed to limestone) layer that is
peculiar to this particular region. And, the magmatic intrusions are in line
with the direction of the impact object coming from the northeast. It is
possible that the angled impact and the large size of the impact created more
of an oblong pressure gouge out of the Earth as it also created the impact
and the later magmatic intrusion could have again infused the
sand and sandstone above it with some sulfur. Or, the impact object could have
been significantly oblong and hit nearly flat on the long side.
whether the lack of exact match up occurs because of the political designation
of the Vidalia area or because of something related to the angled impact out of
the northeast or the possible oblong shape of the impact object, I believe that
examination of the site will show that it is truly the original impact site of
the dinosaur-killing asteroid.
The Vidalia onion growing area
is truly unique. Now we know why.
SEEING THE DELAMINATION
Although I have written about the delamination and movement of
the top layer of earth during this impact landslide, I have not yet shown much
confirming evidence that this delamination movement event actually happened.
Therefore, I am including a map that shows the thickness of the Floridan
aquifer system. This system runs from coastal South Carolina through coastal
Louisiana, including the entire state of Florida. In effect, this map shows the
thickness of the limestone layer in this large area.
The first thing to note is the
increased thickness near the mouth of the Appalachicola River (just to the
north of the words "Gulf of Mexico" on the map). Clearly the increased
thickness in this area is a red herring. It is due to the alluvial deposits of
the Appalachicola river as it has brought silt down from the Appalachian and
Blue Ridge Mountains to the north over the past millenia. The river is big,
strong and very silty to this day. Therefore, this alluvial thickness occurred
much later than the impact 66 MYA and should be ignored when looking at the
overall picture of an impact landslide.
With the Appalachicola River's
alluvial deposits ignored, the map shows a clear picture of an impact landslide
that slid the top layer of the Earth from northeast to southwest, leaving the
majority of the rest of the actual peninsula of Florida in its original state.
The difference between the impact landslide area and the untouched area in the
Florida peninsula is quite large. Most of the untouched Florida peninsula shows
an average thickness of about 3000 feet. The thickness of the area of the
impact landslide is less than half of that. The picture looks just like what
one would expect if an impact landslide had occurred.
I also include another map
entitled: "Lower Floridan Aquifer." This map shows the chloride concentration
in the Lower Floridan Aquifer. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this
map is the fact that most of the area that I assume to be in the impact
landslide area is labeled as "Area where Lower Floridan aquifer does not
occur." In other words, in the area where I expect that an impact landslide
will remove a significant amount of the top of the Earth's crust, there is no
lower part of the Floridan aquifer
it just doesn't exist. And yet, there
is a lower aquifer level at even lower thickness locations along the Georgia
coast (see previous map).
How does one explain this situation without invoking an impact
landslide, especially when so many other factors add up, too?
One of the frustrating things about writing a book like this is
the fact that it is hard or even impossible to do experiments or make
predictions about the subject. It seems that I am always talking about things
that have already happened, but that I am seeing these things through a
different lens. Until now, there has been no definitive way to make any
and I'm certainly not going to try to conduct experiments
using large cosmic impact objects.
However, when it comes to the
original impact site of the dinosaur-killing asteroid 66 MYA, I can now
actually make some meaningful predictions.
If I can persuade some person
or institution to drill in the Vidalia onion growing area, above the circular
magmatic intrusions, then I can safely predict:
1. FORAMINIFERA - Once the
drill gets beyond the surface area (the Chesapeake Bay impact 35 MYA and the
resulting tsunami as well as unknown others may influence the foraminifera
content of drill cores near the surface), the foraminifera will be at least 66
million years old. This age can be determined by using the evolutionary track
of these creatures.
2. MAGMATIC INTRUSION - The age of the magmatic intrusion will
not be older than 66 million years, but it should be near to 66 million years
result would be a significant and unexpected departure from the normal
geological assumption that the volcanism would date to the Triassic period and
would be covered by younger material, not older material.
This evidence should provide
conclusive proof of the original impact site of the dinosaur-killiing asteroid
to any fair-minded investigator. For those who might claim that this new impact
site is actually the result of the asteroid splitting in two just prior to
impact, I would ask them to show me a circular magmatic intrusion at the
Chicxulub site. They won't find one. I would also ask them to reconsider the
nature of the Kara double impact in Russia 70 MYA. It was probably another
example of an impact landslide.
1. MAGMATIC INTRUSION MAPS
2. SITE LOCATION MAP
3. GEOLOGICAL MAP OF GEORGIA
4. THICKNESS OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
5. LOWER FLORIDAN AQUIFER
THE EFFECTS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPACT
About 35.5 MYA, a large object crashed into the
Chesapeake Bay area in Maryland from out of the northeast. The impact caused an
antipodal hotspot that ran down the east coast of Australia.
impact site, itself, the energy pushed the east coast of the U.S. in a
southwestward direction, causing the indented eastern coastline of the U.S. in
the area of Maryland and Virginia, and gradually closing the rift in the middle
of the country.
The rift, located at the Mississippi River and the Ohio
River valleys, still experiences strike slip fault movement from the pressure
to the south on the eastern side of the now-closed rift (i.e. the New Madrid
LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE
let's ask the question: What makes this impact scenario more plausible than the
Standard Theory, which doesn't posit movement at the site of the impact?
1. MECHANISM FOR NEW MADRID - The Impact Effect
Scenario offers a clear mechanism for the cause and continued movement of the
fault in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys. Without some kind of really
good reason for the New Madrid fault, it is bizarre to have the largest
earthquakes in the history of the U.S. occurring in the middle of the normally
stable continental mass.
2. LARGE IGNEOUS PROVINCES - The map of Large
Igneous Provinces shows a questionable magmatic location (it has a question
mark on it) in the "thumb" of the Yucatan Peninsula. This is mostly
questionable because it located so far away from the rest of the magmatic
locations of the CAMP. The Impact Effect Scenario moves this magmatism
location's initial site to a spot right next to the CAMP locations in lower
Georgia and Alabama. 103 pg 4
Furthermore, an analysis of the
Caribbean Ocean plateau by Keith H. James finds that the thumb area of the
Yucatan has been tectonically linked to Florida, across the Gulf of Mexico.
57 pg 2
3. STRETCH MARKS - A look at a relief map of the Gulf
of Mexico and the Caribbean basin shows stretch marks indicating the movement
of Mexico and Central America away from the Caribbean islands, Florida and the
Bahamas shelf area. The pieces seem to fit together, with Jamaica, especially,
appearing to be partially pulled towards the Central America area.
SAME GEOLOGICAL ORIGIN - Pelagic limestone from the Maya Block in Central
America are similar in age and lithology to the sedimentary sequence of
southwestern Cuba and suggest a common depositional area on the eastern margin
of the Maya Block in the Proto-Caribbean Basin." 113
STRETCHED OUT AREA NORTH OF THE SIERRA MADRES - There is an area between the
Sierra Madre Mountains in Mexico and the lower Rocky Mountains in the U.S. that
is not very mountainous
it is as though that area was stretched out,
lowering the mountainous area that was probably there originally. The Impact
Effect Scenario provides a definite cause for this stretched out situation.
6. IT FITS THE "BLOB WITH A TAIL" MODEL - North America is the only
continent (with the exception of the Eurasian conglomeration) that does not fit
the "blob with a tail" model. This Impact Effects Scenario would explain this
7. COMMON SENSE - Does it make sense that a huge impact that
comes in at an angle would not have at least some angular effect at the impact
site? If tectonic plates are going to move around because of mantle plumes, why
wouldn't a huge angled impact cause at least some of the earth's surface to
As I will detail in chapter 2.7, another example of
movement as the result of an angled impact is the Permian extinction impact in
Antarctica 250 MYA. The impact caused the entire Old Australia continent to
move to the south and east, with Eastern Antarctica eventually breaking off and
moving south as the stresses from one-sided (not evenly applied along the whole
length of this huge continent) forward pressure would not allow such a large
structure to stay intact. 57 pg 2
EXPLAINING EASTERN NORTH AMERICA
While this explanation of the three plates which formed North America
does explain the interaction involved, it does not explain the origin of the
key player ... Eastern North America.
Siberia will be explained in
Chapter 2.7. The remnant land at the San Andreas Fault has been explained.
Let's look at the explanation for Eastern North America.
I contend that
Eastern North America was created as a result of a very large impact at the end
of the Triassic, about 202 MYA. This event caused the formation of the Central
Atlantic Magmatic Provinces (CAMP) as a side effect of uplifting the new
Eastern North American Continent.
Because the northern part of the new
Eastern North American Continent did not fully separate from the European
continent until 65 MYA, it has been more difficult to see how the process
worked. However, we can find reasonable candidates for the necessary
participants in this continental formation.
1. CRATER -- There are no absolute answers here.
However, we do have a candidate. Looking at where the original hotspot was
likely to have been and where an impact would have had to have been to be
antipodal to the initial hotspot, there is a possible candidate: The Bedout
crater, located just to the northeast of Australia. However, we cannot be sure.
2. HOTSPOT -- The hotspot for the uplifting of the Eastern North
American Continent is interior to the continent and likely located at or near
Montreal, Canada or under northern Lake Ontario. It is also possible that the
initial hotspot was located to the northwest of either location and that the
cracks propagated to that area and the volcanism started "squirting out" at one
of those points (similar to the Columbia River volcanism in Washington State,
where the Yellowstone hotspot, then located under the Rocky Mountains, couldn't
break through the surface due to the weight and thickness of the rocks.
Instead, the volcanism moved sideways to the Columbia River valley where it
could break out). The entire hotspot situation is confusing, in that much of
northern Eastern North America remained mostly attached to the European
Continent for tens of millions of years. This means that the Eastern American
Continent might not have started outrunning the hotspot until 60 million years
after the creation impact.
However, there are very visible crack and
split lines in the initial hotspot area that can explain the CAMP volcanism as
the cracks propagated to the uplifted edge area of the new continent. The
clearest crack propagation lines are the St. Lawrence seaway, the Hudson
Valley/Lake Champlain divide, the Mohawk River in New York State and the basin
structure of the Great Lakes, much of which is underlain by basalt intrusions.
Even the Finger Lakes of Upstate New York might be the result of tentative
crack propagation. As the propagated cracks released the magmatic pressure and
uplifted and partially separated the Eastern North American Continent from
Europe, they also created the huge CAMP lava flows. Adding to the problem of
determining the original location of the hotspot is the fact that continued
glaciation over the millennia has eroded identifying features on the landscape.
The unusually large amount of volcanism of the
CAMP could mean that a significant amount of the pressure of uplift was
relieved through the CAMP rather than being used in the uplift. This could
explain the partial attachment of the northeastern section (Greenland) to
Europe, as well as a possible lower-than-usual uplift on the western side of
this new continent. 81 pg 22
A Mafic oceanic crustal western
edge of this new continent could have resulted in subduction of that edge under
the Siberian Tail remnant during the collision 80 MYA to 70 MYA at the start of
the Laramide Orogeny (building of the Rocky Mountains). This subducted
collision could have uplifted the high plains and built the Rockies as a normal
continental mountain range from the east, rather than a uniquely strangely
shallow-angled subducted Farallon Plate from the west. The separation of the
pieces of the Siberian Tail as it moved north and east could explain the Big
Horn Basin and other intermountain basins.
3. BLOB WITH A TAIL -- While the Eastern North
American continental uplift did produce a blob with a tail, it is difficult to
see this today because:
a. THE TAIL MOVED 65 MYA -- As detailed earlier
in this chapter, the Chicxulub impact 65 MYA moved most of the tail to the
south and west, as it opened up a gash in the midsection of the Eastern North
American Continent. The pushed-over tail material lined up under the Siberian
tail section of the combined continent, making the continent look as though it
had two tails.
b. COMBINED CONTINENTAL MASSES -- As Eastern
North America moved west, it collided with the tail of the Siberian Continent,
which (with the remnant San Andreas portion of the Pacific Plate at the western
edge) formed the combined continent that we see today. 4.
CONTINENTAL MOVEMENT -- The creation of Eastern North America 202 MYA took a
significant amount of land from Europe, as well as including some ocean crust
on its western side. When it comes to continental movement, we can see where
Eastern North America was connected to Europe and we can see where it ended up
However, this was not a straight line path. The collision with
the Siberian tail (80MYA to 70 MYA) would have moved it northward and/or caused
it to rotate clockwise. The Chicxulub impact 65 MYA would have moved it to the
southwest, until the tail split and the western tail continued on its southwest
journey. Then, 35 MYA, the Chesapeake Bay impact would have moved the entire
plate slightly to the south and west.
5. TANDEM MOVEMENT -- The
original hotspot location is difficult to determine. There is a good
possibility that the Eastern North American Continent did not start to outrun
the hotspot (due to the continent still being partially attached to Europe)
until around 130 MYA. Given the likelihood that the original hotspot and the
crack propagation occurred near Montreal and/or northern Lake Ontario, there is
a clear candidate for the subsequent track of the hotspot. This track is the
New England Seamount Chain. The New England Seamount Chain begins off the
southeast coast of Cape Cod with the Bear Seamount (102 million years old) and
continues southeast to the Nashville Seamount (82 million years old).
If we follow the New England seamount chain
backwards in time, we find that this same hotspot built the White Mountains in
New Hampshire circa 124 MYA and created volcanic intrusions in the Montreal
area approximately 136 MYA. The Nashville Seamount was created 82 MYA. Then the
seamount chain seems to end. However, many geologists believe that it continues
at the Corner Rise Seamounts and then, later, across the mid-ocean ridge, with
the Great Meteor Seamounts.
But, how could this be? The New England
Seamounts move in a relatively straight line and then end at the Nashville
Seamount. The Corner Rise Seamounts begin at 75 MYA and are located
significantly to the north. Why would the hotspot change direction like that?
The answer is that it didn't. Instead, the Eastern North American Plate changed
direction. Somewhere around 80 MYA and 70 MYA, the Eastern North American Plate
ran into the Siberian tail, which was moving to the north and west. This
collision would likely have caused the Eastern North American Plate to be
grabbed and rotated clockwise, thus moving the eastern edge of the plate to the
Because the eastern edge of the Eastern North American Plate
moved to the south, the New England hotspot appeared to move significantly to
the north, where it created the Corner Rise Seamounts (75 MYA to 70 MYA). At
this point, the seamounts stop. However, in a location of similar latitude
across the mid-ocean ridge, a new group of seamounts begin. Some geologists
conclude that this new group is a continuation of the New England Seamount
Chain, now rechristened the Great Meteor Seamounts. I believe that this
interpretation is correct, although my version is slightly different. The
standard view is that the hotspot is moving southeast. I believe that the
hotspot is moving very slowly northwest, but that the plates (Eastern North
American and Europe) are both moving faster in a westerly direction than the
slow moving hotspot. 88,89,90,91,92,93,94
extinction caused by the impact which created the Eastern North American Plate
at its antipode, as well as the CAMP, was the end-Triassic extinction. The
extensive magmatism of the CAMP were the primary driving force for this major
extinction. But we must remember, the CAMP were created by the antipodal impact
This was a huge magmatic event at virtually the same time as
the Triassic extinction approx. 202 MYA. Called the Central Atlantic Magmatic
Province (CAMP), this region contains 300,000 square kilometers of extrusive
basalts that occurred around 200 MYA. Moreover, "dikes and sills of CAMP that
fed the basin basalts also occur across 11 million square kilometers within
four continents, centered upon but extending far outside of the initial
Pangaean rift zone" according to J. Gregory McHone. 54
CAMP is located along the rift line that occurred between North America and
Europe as Pangaea began to break up about 200 MYA. There are also substantial
basalt intrusions and deposits along the African and South American coasts,
which lead most geologists to believe that there was rifting between those two
continents, also (I do not believe that there was any rifting here, because the
South American continent had not yet been created
see Chapter 2.4. In my
view, the CAMP that was located in and near Africa and northern South America
was a result of the creation of the Eastern North American Plate ... see
In the last 30 years, the idea of a CAMP has gone from an
interesting theory to a pretty well proven reality. The ages and types of
magmatism are now proven to be very similar all along this huge area.
Initially, it looks to be a stretch to conclude that all of these magmatic
events are part of the same mega-event. But now this theory is pretty well
The small difference in the cited dates
(202 MYA for the Triassic extinction and 200 MYA for the CAMP) would be right
at the limit of the stated margin of error, but it could also mean that there
are some CAMP sites that are just slightly older that have not yet been sampled
or have not been sampled in the oldest areas of those sites.
McHone notes that, although some geologists might favor a plume theory for the
cause of this magmatism, there is no evidence to support this possibility, nor
is there a hotspot that is a likely culprit. It appears that this magmatism was
a result of plate tectonic action. He says, "Continental rifting was active 25
m.y. before and after the magmatic event, during which rifting and magmatism
evolved into a spreading ocean crust." 58
of the conversation seems to be about the CAMP and their relation to the
Triassic extinction. No one speaks to the cause of the CAMP, other than to say
that they are related to the breakup of Pangaea.
The only explanation
for the breakup of Pangaea seems to be "rifting," caused by tectonic forces.
A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION
Although I agree with the CAMP theory in general, I believe that there are two
important differences between this theory as stated and what actually occurred.
These differences deal with the cause of the breakup of Pangaea and the
relationship between South America and Africa.
As seen in maps of the
CAMP, the magmatic activity of the CAMP stopped somewhere around the equator.
It did not go farther south. This probably means that the rifting stopped at
that point. 57 pg 2
If the reason for the CAMP was the
breakup of Pangaea, then there is no good reason for the CAMP to suddenly stop
halfway down the coast of Africa. It was already halfway down the Gondwana area
of Pangaea. Why stop there?
I believe that the reason why the CAMP
stopped around the equator had to do with the fact that it relates only to the
creation of the Eastern North American Plate.
I believe that the South
American continent was not created until 132 MYA (see see Chapter 2.4).
Therefore, models of the CAMP that show the effects on South America are not
accurate. South America did not exist at that time.
When South America
was uplifted as a continent 132 MYA, it contained some of the CAMP material
(Amazonia) in its northern reaches, because that material happened to be
located there at the time it was uplifted. But there was no rifting related to
South America until it was created 132 MYA and given a strong westward impetus.
Up until then, the Pacific plate was being subducted by Africa near its
southern end while being subducted in the opposite direction by the Eurasian
plate on its northern end. This impossible situation forced the creation of the
Nazca plate, which was initially being subducted by Africa but is now being
subducted by Africa's proxy, South America.
While these important
differences need to be pointed out, they do not change the basic premise of the
CAMP and its relation to the Triassic extinction.
It appears quite
probable that the Triassic extinction was caused by the CAMP. However, the CAMP
were caused by the impact effects of an impact that created Eastern North
America. Therefore, a cosmic impact was the root cause of the Triassic