I think I found something big....

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andrech, Aug 8, 2009.

  1. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    373
    "present my evidence"

    You really have not described your evidence, but if all you are doing is showing the topography of the areas, I am sure you know that is insufficient. You will need to do quite a bit of ground-work to show the disruption of the stratigraphy in the area, to prove that the impact happened in the timeframe you are suggesting.

    Anyway, my point is that your evidence needs to be gathered from somewhere other than an armchair. I'm not saying that you haven't done th groundwork but I did not see you say anything about it (may have missed it in this thread).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Your point is well made, as geological evidence will be needed at some point. However the remote nature of the site prohibits me from mounting a personal expedition to validate my claims.

    Again sorry for the veil of secrecy, or lack of info I have provided. I have found only 1 study from the area that references the 1 and only core sample ever taken (which was told to me by the local geology department to cost 20 million to obtain). While it does not validate my findings due to its location, it does not contradict them either.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Excellent! You can be sure the fucker has done it before and will do it again- you don't start stealing overnight.

    This is true, and again, very costly.

    Andrech, in your place I would start reading up on meteoroid constitution so that perhaps you can link the two meteoroids if you haven't already. I mean, the likelihood that 2 unrelated impact craters would overlap is probably very small I would guess.

    From the link:
    "How can a 31 km diameter structure not be noticed?"
    :bugeye: a very good question. We spend so much studying the microscopically invisible and the astronomically enormous, while there are still grand discoveries to be made using intuition and the simple instruments available to most.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    I am currently writing a paper on the aftermath of the impact, but I will admit the mathematics involved are a bit daunting, well for me at least lol. I just scraped by my advanced calculus course and I havent retained much, being it was over 10 years ago.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2009
  8. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    If you have any evidence, please present it. If you are not willing, this thread is useless.

    Forgive my impatience but itis not uncommon for people come claiming they have evidence that never materialises.
     
  9. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    I can see I have alot of people interested, but anyone here knows someone in the scientific community personally that carries weight in this field, that has personal integrity, that I can trust to send my findings?

    Every day that passes a little more of my sanity slips away.

    Also its my assertion that it was a comet impact, not a meteor (yes i know a comet is technically a 'meteroid'). The reason being, that comets are more like to break up prior to impact due to gravitational strain because of its uneven and varied composition, where meteors generally are more homogeneous in its composition.

    Also there is strong evidence that a comet broke up and exploded over north america coming from the people in the 'overgrill' camp. It is my contention that they are partially correct. Small pieces broke off during the entrance into the atmosphere, however the bulk of the comet colided with the earth unimpeded.

    Like I mentioned earlier, the one drill core taken in the area cost 20 million to get due to the remote nature of the site (no its not antarctica if thats what your thinking) so mounting a personal expedition is somewhat cost prohibitive. I wouldnt mind my own personal space program as well LOL

    The reason I am going through this effort is, I hate to admit it, but it is a selfish in nature. Money and credit for the discovery are not my prime motivators. I want to be involved in the discovery from begining to end, not just point it out to some scientists so they can have all the enjoyment of discovery.

    However if this does not come to fruition soon, I will stop being so selfish as its really not in my character. If I am not a complete imbecile and wrong in my conclussions, the world will know this week.

    So if anyone here is has the credentials to make the judgement call, or knows someone who is, please feel free to drop names. I am all ears. Id rather go public to a small number of people, than have the world think me the fool.

    Regards,
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Send it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
     
  11. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    I can't help but agree. So far, the culimination of this thread's topic has been "I have some information that I think is a major discovery, that I'm not willing to discuss openly with anybody, but that I think everyone should be aware of nonetheless in order for me to get published."

    This isn't the holy grail of geology. So cut to the chase already and somebody here who is qualfiied will tell you if what you've found is nonsense or not. Either that, or don't. We don't care what you do either way, but quit being coy.
     
  12. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Sorry if you think im being 'coy' its not my intention, im just trying to benefit from everyone heres experience. You're right when you say that the impact alone is not the holy grail of geology, however its my strongly held belief that the aftermath has the potential to change our understanding of plate techtonics, evolution, theology and mythology, hence my hesitation. I apologize if that sounds extremely ostentacious.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  13. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Ok so I made a video out of my powerpoint presentation and uploaded it to Youtube. Its in 3 parts, and I will upload part 2 and 3 soon.

    youtube.com/watch?v=qWYGy8TIinI
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  14. BWE1 Rulers are for measuring. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    Hmm. I watched it.

    3 immediate things come to mind.

    1. Ice cores. GRIP and GISP2 go back with excellent resolution over 100k years and with spotty resolution almost half a million years. That's in Greenland.
    gisp2.sr.unh.edu (add www to the begining to get the link. I can't post them yet I guess. That's what I get for being a lurker)
    ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html (also add www)

    and the record ought to be in there. You're talking about an event that would have left a record in the cores.

    2. I didn't get where you derived your dates from.

    3. Glacial cycles are recorded in geologic features around the world. There have been several. I'm unaware of any research that implied the last one ended suddenly. (more suddenly than climactic shift accounts for.)

    I doubt it a comet could transmit enough energy to shift the crust that much. Plate tectonics is a pretty well studied phenomenon and the models don't show a bump at the beginning of the holocene.

    Otherwise, cool. That NOAA link ought to give you some info on the major dates in the cores. You could probably find more in the tephrachronology databases. I know Iceland has a big research program in that. You could probably Google it.
     
  15. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Thanks for your input.

    1. Ice cores in greenland would date back that far since it was an area that was overlapping in both polar zones. Proponents of the overgrill theory have found spotted sites over north america that suggests fragments that exploded in the atmosphere. I will definately look into it furthur.

    2. I got the dates from the research put forth by DR Charles Hapgood in his book, Path of the Poles. Sorry, my sources are in part3. Damn the 10 minute time limit.

    3. You will have to agree that something had to have triggered a switch of glaciation from the North pole to the south pole. I could have done more exhaustive research but it was causing me anxiety sitting on this any longer.

    I will admit the mathematics involved with calulating the energy needed to displace the crust is testing the limits of my mathematics skill, but I am working it out. In my mind its at least plausible.

    Wait til the next part.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  16. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    Where do you get the idea that the Lomonosov ridge is of recent volcanic origin?
    I have found nothing claiming anything of the sort. I have however found a paper stating it is a sliver of continental shelf rifted off during the palaeocene. Section 2 of This paper.
    If you disagree, why?
     
  17. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    well dang im only into the abstract of that paper and it seems to be validating me so far ...

    ...Another possibility is a pressure wave from a possible impact of an extraterrestrial object on Alpha Ridge about 500 km away...

    However it is thier contention that it was pre-pleistocene.

    Thanks!! I will keep reading.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  18. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Ok I read the paper and boy is it dry.

    It is the author contention that

    "Plate tectonic arguments and geophysical data strongly suggest the ridge represents a sliver of the Barents/Kara Sea continental shelf that was rifted off during the late Paleocene"

    They were citing another paper I will have to read now thanks. However at this point I will say that strongly suggest does not mean proof by any means. When I look at the bathymetric maps I see symetry with the gakkel ridge and Lomonosov ridge, a symetry that is lacking on the Eurasia side of Gakkel ridge.

    In my efforts togo through proper channels, I contacted the local earth sciences department at Dalhousie university. I pleaded with the department head to let me show my findings, but downright refused to have an open mind on the matter stating in true scientific manner...

    "If there was a comet impact in the area, I would know..." of all the audacity.

    However one point he did concede to me was that the Lomonosov ridge was most definately volcanic in nature, but created at the same time the eurasia basin opened up, the point I would argue.

    "The cluster of slide scars suggests triggering by an external local event,
    an earthquake or possibly a pressure pulse from impact of an extra-terrestrial object on Alpha Ridge about 500 km away."

    Doesnt that statement pique your interest? I really appreciate the constructive criticism, as it will definely assist in ironing our the wrinkles in my conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  19. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    The second part is up, however it lies primarily in the realm of biology, anthropology and theology for this chapter.

    youtube.com/watch?v=DpqJZJghnSI
     
  20. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    No, but it does not in any way support your idea. Continental shelf is very different in nature to the pile of recently erupted lava flows you suggest the ridge to be. It would be difficult for a geologist to mistake one for another, especially if it were recent enough to still be squishy in the middle. When it separated and where from may be a debateable subject but it seems to be fairly well established that it is a piece of continental shelf. You would need some very strong evidence to the contrary if you wanted to claim otherwise.

    the paper says
    In other words, the drape of sedimentary rock that covers the ridge is significantly older than your hypothesised event. Therefore the ridge cannot be lava associated with your event.


    It is interesting, but your hypothesised impact site(s) do not appear to be on the alpha ridge. The paper also states:
    So if the slide scar has been accumulating sediment for 600 thousand years after the slide occured, then meteorite triggered or not, the slides are way way older than the time frame you are talking about.
     
  21. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Quote

    3. Glacial cycles are recorded in geologic features around the world. There have been several. I'm unaware of any research that implied the last one ended suddenly. (more suddenly than climactic shift accounts for.)


    I found this video series made last year that suggests the pleistocene ended abruptly.
     
  22. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    I need to get to 20 posts to submit a link arrrrgggg
     
  23. Andrech Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    ok just one more time....
     

Share This Page