I think I found something big....

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

  1. Andrech Registered Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. BWE1 Rulers are for measuring. Registered Senior Member

    The ice core record is pretty good. Good luck.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Andrech Registered Member

    I cant argue with your conclusions based on that paper at all Matt, but I for 1 do not take the methods for dating the sediment to be infalliable. I will admit I am ignorant in the dating methodologies employed and its supposed accuracy but I will definately do more research in that area.

    Yea ok so I state that the alpha ridge is a crater ridge and being off by 125km is a big deal at event of this scale? seriously can you calculate the resulting pressure wave from an impact of this magnatude?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    It sounds increasingly like your mind is quite made up about this already and you are immediately suspicious of any evidence that contradicts your idea, not because you have any reason to believe it flawed, but just because you want your idea to be true. Is this a fair comment or am I misinterpreting you?
  8. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    This is called determination. Of all the people that are wrong and determined, there will be a handful who are right and determined. Its blind strength, but it helps in accumulating knowledge. In my opinion there is far more value in a strong biased perspective than a weak standard approach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I for one see a lot of potential interest in this theory; it supports the bible, it supports some extinction theories, it plays into other theories as well. It will certainly reinforce the paper you are referring to if it turns out to be wrong.

    Why is it that in our mythological stories we have the tendency to make monsters large? Perhaps sighting 'megafauna' is in our genetics. Perhaps we miss seeing these enormous creatures. In our cells, in our genes, we know that these enormous monsters exist. Thats why we believe in mythology. In every myth there is some truth, thats what they say.

    I'm not sure if there would be anything in the core samples in greenland if the impact site was one of the oceans. Isn't it possible that most of the dust was swept away by the sea? Perhaps oceanic cores are a better place to look for iridium. Still, the oceans have a surface area of 361,000,000 square kilometers. Even if 100 cubic kilometers of matter entered the earth it would amount to maybe a micrometer of sediment across the entire oceans. . .

    The ridge didn't necessarily melt into place, maybe it was just bent out of shape like mountain ridges. Mountain ridges don't melt, they warp over long periods of time. However, if the mudslide is over 600,000 years old the asteroids should have impacted long ago - perhaps you are jumping the gun in trying to treat this impact event as something recent.

    My question- hasn't there been fossil proof of bipedal humans over 60,000 years ago?
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2009
  9. Andre.chaisson Registered Member

    I didnt jump the gun in my dating of the event, it was clues that the event occured that pointed me to the location of the craters, not the other way around.

    People assume that I am some random internet guy exploring google earth, this couldnt be farther from the truth. I spent months reading books and articles and watching related documentaries before I set out on my deliberate search for the Clovis Comet.

    The reason I am so determined is simply because it wasnt a fluke find, it was quite deliberate. I was searching in an area that was highly suspect. It lay at the edge of the Laurentian Ice Sheet, off the north coast of the neatherlands.

    With regards to bipedalism, I never stated that hominids didnt develop bipedalism in my videos, I simply stated that an aquatic phaze of evolution necessitated the realignment of our spine and pelvis to its current configuration, from our slouching ancestors.
  10. John M Registered Senior Member

    Possible Impact

    Hi Andre. I'm, I suspect, a fellow geologist with for the rest of you some understanding of and fascination with physics and astronomy. I'm not a fan of impacts, they're not my thing. However it is obvious that such things have occured and that for some structures no other cause is as reasonable. So if you think that is the best interpretation, go with it. I suggest two things if you haven't considered them already. First keep it as a working hypothesis until all reasonable alternatives are eliminated. Two, go to the sight if you haven't already, or maybe a second time, and get ground truth information.

    As for trying to publish -- there are ways to do scientifically on line -- vs further discussion here on this forum there are some things to consider. IF you try and publish prematurely without sufficient data you may get it simply rejected with someone stealing the idea and finishing the work instead. On the other hand it could be just as easily stolen here if you're not carefull. I wouldn't be afraid of ridicule, even if its unpleasent. Alot of great scientists were ridiculed at first until it was discovered they were right.

    So why don't you present some of the component observatons you've made with why you think they are impact made with out coordinates or other geographical references and see what happens.

    Cheers and good luck.
  11. Andre.chaisson Registered Member

    Thanks for your input John. I have wrote a paper and tried to get it published in a peer reviewed journal, but was turned down like you said due to lack of hard evidence,and I suppose I am not the best writer. I also posted some youtube videos in this thread and in the general science thread with alot more information on the crater.

    I cannot mount an expedition to the area simply because it isnt in my backyard, it lies under the arctic ocean. I am trying to find the appropriate organization to perform coring in the area, but no responses as of yet.

    I figured youtube would be a 'poor mans' copyright, since uploads are dated and I could always say that I discovered it first. Also I have emailed my non published paper to many prominent researchers in the field, some of which have responded and agreed to be witness. I would gladly give kudos to anyone wanting to write a paper on it, just dont forget to give me credit for the discovery. Anyone trying to cut me out would face my eternal wrath.

    You cant see it in the videos clearly, but are several small peaks that line the larger circular outline, perfectly 500km away from the central upheaval. Another thing I neglect to mention in the video is that at an interference node between the 2 impact shockwaves, there is another large peak.

    I have sacrificed more on this obsession than anyone here could imagine, truthfully anyone trying to steal credit from me will have to face a man that honestly has nothing left to lose.

    What I need is a champion. Some professional geologist to take my cause as there own and help me get the credit I deserve. Anyone doing this would have my eternal gratitude and friendship, and not to mention a portion of any success I get as a result. This has been an endurance test so far, but I am sure that time will vindicate my theories.
  12. fellowtraveler Banned Banned

    REPLY: What harm is there in publishing here. If you are right about all this you have a published record time and date stamped. If you are wrong, your wrong and live with it. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, GO FOR IT, I say. No guts no glory. Of course it is your life not mine. Are you worried about your academic reputation ? You have to decide for yourself. ...traveler
  13. Andre.chaisson Registered Member

    I dont think I am gonna just paste my Article into the forums, but if your computer is decent enough, watch the videos I posted on my youtube channel youtube.com/user/dredawgz1. It contains most everything my article has, and its set to pink floyds 'shine on you crazy diamond' with pictures. You have to watch it in HD in full screen to be legible unfortunately. I am currently remaking it with narration and animation but its a long process.

    It was such an amazing moment when I found it. It was right where I thought it would be, except there was 2 craters, not 1. This gave creedence to the theory put forth recently in 2007, that tied all the clovis sites together, except I saw a corelation they did not. I combined their observations in with a fringe theory from the 60s called "Earth Crustal Displacement" and soon the comets trajectory became clear.

    Approaching at a very shallow angle and at extremely high velocity, the comet streaked northwards over Europe, impacting about 700km of the coast of the Norway, on the edge of the Laurentian Ice sheet. This allowed for a tremendous amount of lateral force to be transmitted to the crust, allowing it to move independant of the mantle and shift about 2800 km.

    Yea its a pretty crazy theory, I will admit, but if you watch the videos I dont stop there. Part 2 and 3 are even more far out.

    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  14. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    If you wish to be taken seriously by the scientific community about the discovery of a crater it would be best if you didn't mention non-existent flash frozen mammoths or impossible crackpot theories about impacts causing the continents to go skipping about the globe.

    Such flights of fancy are probably responsible for the casual dismissal you've experienced so far.

  15. Andre.chaisson Registered Member


    Call me a crackpot if you will, but I will reiterate. It was my research into "Earth Crustal Displacement" theory that lead me to the discovery, it was not a chance browsing on Google Earth. Also I would be remiss to not mention that this theory was believed credible by the late Albert Einstein himself.

    Non existant flash frozen mammoths? I have never heard that this was debunked in anyway. If you can site a reference on that I would look into it. Honestly though, it is really a small piece of the bigger picture. There was not enough dust kicked up in this event to account for the 95% species loss, hell the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, only killed about 75% of the species. It was a combination of ecosystem collapse, flash burning, flooding and the key to it all, the reduction in ocean salinity levels and current that lead to the wide sweeping death of the pre-holocene era.

    However you may be right in your assertion that it resulted in 'casual' dismissal, but I am willing to accept that. You see Raithere, history is littered with false paradigms, and I for one will not be afraid to challenge them.

    Even if its a one and a billion chance I am correct, I would still give my life for the opportunity to be one of those people who changed how we look at the world and our origins forever. Wouldn't you?
  16. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    The main problem with this theory is the sheer amount of energy involved which would make it impossible that pretty much any life could survive. Just one magnitude 9 Earthquake releases the equivalent of 475 megatons of TNT and this event would be several orders of magnitude greater than that. The earthquake on December 26, 2004 was magnitude 9. It moved the mean North Pole 2.5 centimeters. A quick calculation suggests that to move the pole the 3200 kilometers you suggest would require the equivalent of 128,000,000 such earthquakes or 60,800,000,000 megatons.


    Einstein was impressed by Hapgood's hypothesis which did not involve comets slamming into the Earth and took 5000 years. This was also in 1953 when plate tectonic theory was in its infancy. Evidence that plates actually did move was not released until 3 years later. Prior to 1956 it was merely hypothetical. And there was no data regarding the spreading of ocean floor until the 60s. That Einstein found it an interesting hypothesis worthy of further investigation is neither surprising, nor indicative of its veracity. In any case, this is merely an appeal to authority and has no bearing on the argument.


    It didn't need to be debunked, it's only ever been a wild story. All mammoths ever found have shown significant signs of decomposition and no evidence that they were flash frozen. They were also well adapted to cold climates so the fact that some were buried in snow and ice after they died should be of no surprise.


    Challenge away, that's what science is all about. But it's best if you research the evidence against your position before you attempt to publish. You will need to answer these questions. Especially since you are going against well founded and well evinced theories. You will need to show far more than a couple of possible crater sites.


    I'm quite content with the meager influence I have in my little corner of the world.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But I can appreciate the sentiment.

  17. Andre.chaisson Registered Member

    Thats exactly why I am here Raithere, I dont claim to know it all, but what I do know makes this a compelling endeavor nonetheless. It was my hope that instead of people trying to only find fault, it would cause other people to find the truth in what I am theorizing, and tie it into observations and data I am totally unfamiliar with, thereby giving creedence. Honestly I think that anyone on my side with the education and knowledge to vindicate me, would simply be working now to be first to publish.

    I have been agonizing over the math to prove my hypothesis possible and I am close, its just taken me some time to relearn what I forgot since university.

    Regardless of the mechanism of which triggered earth crustal displacement, it was Hapgoods observations that pointed towards the event occuring, even if he and Einstein couldnt fathom it being caused by an external force. I used his data in which proved that the North magnetic pole was in Northern Quebec prior to the holocene. I am sure that you will state that it is far more likely that the magnetosphere was what shifted in relation to the crust, because we know it drifts slowly now, but I believe that the opposite can be true as well.

    I will take your opinions under close advisement Raithere, primarily because part of me wants to let this go and be proven wrong. So far this has been a huge burden on my ego, and the longer I let it have a life of its own, the more of my own life is sacrificed.

    Please do not assume that I was in the search of fame and notariety, frankly before this I was confident that I would go my whole life without ever making a meaningful impact on the world(pardon the pun), and in one "Eureka" moment it all changed.

    Thanks for your criticisms,
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  18. Andre.chaisson Registered Member


    I would tend to disagree with this calculation, not to say that the energy required isnt enormous ( I swear I will finish my calcs soon). Earthquakes are omnidirectional events generally, and if a magnitude 9 earthquake caused a shift of even 2.5 centimeters, it actually gives some validity to what I am proposing. It means that the earthquake had enough energy to overcome the liquid static friction between the asthenosphere and lithosphere, but lacked the vectoral energy to move it furthur, since the resulting wave travelled out from the epicentre uniformly in ALL directions.

    Do you not agree?
  19. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    I think your best course is to limit the scope of your hypothesis, take it in pieces and see if you can prove one at a time. Taking the whole thing head on and providing a complete alternative to the geologic history of Earth, human history, and evolution is probably more than any one person can handle. I would start with proving either the craters or the rapid movement of the continents as they are the most crucial aspects of your theory. The rapid movement of the continents would go furthest towards proving your overall hypothesis but it would be easier to convince a skeptical audience about the craters.

    Certainly it's a back of the envelope calculation but I think it's a fair approximation of the order of energy required.

    I'm no expert but I see a couple of problems with your hypothesis. By “overcoming the liquid static friction” I must assume you mean that the first impact lowered the viscosity of the asthenosphere. I don't see how even a huge local impact would do this across the entire globe without liquefying a good portion of the lithosphere. This effect would also be evident in a large general increase in speed of plate movement and volcanic activity after the impact.

    As an aside, earthquakes are directional as the plates catch against each other, build up force, and then suddenly snap in the direction they are moving.

    It appears there is a tremendous amount of interest in that area as there is a dispute over who owns it. As a result there is a lot of geologic investigation going on, attempting to prove the Lomonosov Ridge area belongs to Russia, Canada, Denmark, or Greenland by demonstrating which continental plate it is a part of. This info might help you with your theory.


  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    This is not only good advice, it is essential advice. If you choose to ignore it you will be branded a crackpot. Solving diverse, multi-disciplinary problems is the specialised realm of the crackpot. While we have not yet seen you waddle, there has been a lot of quacking going on - several readers will suspect you are indeed a duck. Focus on the impact crater alone, prove it, then move forward.

    In a related matter, pushing HAB theory is another sure fire way of being branded a crackpot. Why make things so difficult for yourself?
  21. Andre.chaisson Registered Member

    I take all advice under advisement, and yes I will heed both your warnings. I suppose I was just eager to reveal what I believe is a fantastic revelation to the world. I have had time in the past where I failed to act fast on ideas and someone else had the same idea independantly. I told myself years ago that if that feeling ever came again, that I would attack it with every fiber of my being and without hesitation.

    If I didnt believe that someone could just as easily find it like I did, I would have taken a much more methodical approach to research, namely re-enrolling myself in university courses and getting the appropriate degrees necessary to turn the ears of the scientific world. Instead I chose independant research, being that it was much more accessible, affordable and didnt sacrifice my families income level.

    I have honestly never heard of the 'HAB' theory but thanks for bringing it to my attention, I will look into it furthur. After all I am looking for a path to credibility not quack-dom.

    Thats the reason I am on this forum and not on some mysteries of Egypt or an Eric von Dannigan site or something. I know the only way to do that is to get honest, unbiased, intelligent opinions from people like yourself and Raithere, and iron out the perceived wrinkles. If I was part of a research team I would rely on them for that, but alas I am just a working joe and must rely on people willing to give of there time to tell me how I am mistaken and more importantly, how to right myself.

    Best Regards,

Share This Page