Note to the reader …. there is a second part uploaded in sections as posts that will describe the magnetic properties of Earth and how they facilitated this process. Download PDF of full article Here.
© 2014 by B. L. Freeborn
It is a marvelous situation we find ourselves in. We live upon a planet that was created with an excellent shock absorber and dampening system, and that has made all the difference.
Consider, that it is statistically improbable that the Earth has existed and will continue to exist without collision from a large celestial body capable of distorting its shape. The fact that the Earth is nearly a perfect spheroid of modest distortion implies that no impact has occurred of a magnitude large enough to distort its shape since its first formation -or- that it has a previously unrecognized way of dealing with impacts of extreme proportions.
We have a record of a large impact within popular and accepted science today. This would be the crater in the Yucatan which is believed to have resulted in the decimation of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Typically this event is described to give the image of a comet striking the planet, a fireball ensues, dust and debris in the upper atmosphere blocks out sunlight and the dinosaurs die off from cold and hunger. Perhaps this is an oversimplification and the process of large impacts deserves closer inspection.
It was less than a hundred years ago when we came to understand the planet was not a solid but composed of layers. Up to date information in the sciences moved slowly in those days. In 1953, Allan O. Kelly and Frank Dachille wrote “Target: Earth, The Role of Large Meteors in Earth Science.” In it they suggested a comet striking the planet could impart enough force to tip the planet causing the observed changes in magnetic layers in the rock. In one section they speculate on how much force supplied by a comet would be required to shear a planet composed of steel layers. Their results indicted an overwhelming possibility of this limit being exceeded. Unfortunately, they were working with outdated information as to the composition of the planet which led them to think the planet had tipped to its present ecliptic angle of 23½ by the latest impact.
It was during this same time period when the evidence that the magnetic poles wander became widely known. In 1954, Time magazine published a map depicting the movement of the pole. By then it was known that there was a liquid layer within the core of the planet. It was explained that it that was the exterior layers of the planet that were moving in relation to the magnetic field and this was being recorded in the rock.
In 1957, Kenneth Creer, Edward (Ted) Irving and S. Keith Runcorn at Cambridge showed that the magnetic record within the rock layers laid down over the Earth on the Eurasian continent correlated well with those in North America as far as where the magnetic pole has been over tens of millions of years. However, they found a few tens of millions of years ago the record was in discord by some 25 degrees. They attributed this to the separation of the South American continent from Africa and the North American continent from Europe. They proposed this split occurred sometime during the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic era. Although attributed to different time periods, it takes little imagination to speculate that a comet impact just as we find in the Yucatan could have supplied enough energy to fracture the continents apart and set the west in motion away from the east.
Nearly simultaneously, Charles Hapgood published in 1958 that the poles not only drifted as depicted in Time magazine but could undergo large displacements over a much shorter time period. He believed that the pole had moved two thousand miles from a position in Hudson Bay to its present position since the last ice age. This is a rotation of 30 to 35 degrees. Like Creer’s group he believed it was the outer crust of the planet that was moving. However, he was never able to explain the mechanics of what would cause this large displacement to occur and scientifically the theory was never embraced. In total contrast, his work has been widely read by the public leading the average reader of his work to believe this is accepted as fact. His theory further described the effects of such displacements in relation to mountain building. His idea continues to be rebutted since no one can explain with proof what would have caused the crust to slip so dramatically as recently as the last Ice Age.
By 1963, the idea of pole reversals was widely believed and work on the geomagnetism of the planet continues. This is essentially how things stand today. We have a rejected theory of comet collision; an approved theory of earth crust movement that creeps along; a rejected theory of rapid crust movement and mountain building; and accepted theories of geomagnetism and the inner structure of the Earth. At no time has a cohesive, clear explanation brought all these theories together so that the implications to climatology, geomagnetism, and ethnology can really be considered.
Evidence Available to Study
If there were not such a vast distance in time between the Yucatan comet’s geologic records and the present, it might be possible to speculate further on what actually does happen during such an event. No one has been able to explain what could cause the crust of the planet to move as Hapgood imagined, yet in the Yucatan example we have just such a possibility. If Creer’s geologic record of a 25 degree displacement was a result of this Yucatan impact and they were not attributed to two different eras, then we would have an explanation complete with geologic records. If only a more recent event was at our disposal, we could study the ramifications more throughly. Unfortunately, there has been no proof found that a comet as large as what hit in the Yucatan has hit the Earth since then. Numerous authors have proposed comet impacts in various locations with sundry results but none have been embraced by academia.
Rather than being stolid in this belief and dismissing all these various comet proposals, let us be methodical instead. To examine the possibility, we have to look at what we actually have today. The thickest ice in Antarctica and Greenland is found at 69S and 72N respectively. (See Figure 1.) These two places are opposite to each other and not at the pinnacle of the planet as one would expect.
Vostok, Antarctica is located at 78 27′ 52″ S, 106 50′ 14″ E. It is as close to the south pole as research can be conducted. At this frigid location the Soviet Union has diligently studied the ice since the 1970’s. Drilling with the French they have found ice cores dating back to 400,000+ years. This is used to prove that the South and North poles have not moved for 400,000 years and it is also used to refute all notions to the contrary. There might be a hitch in that logic.
Hapgood suggested the pole was in Hudson Bay and it was shifted 33.5 degrees south to its present position. For argument’s sake, assume the poles have moved that far. Then in each position of the pole there would exist a unique Arctic/Antarctic circle as shown in the next image. (See Figure 2.) If this region where the Vostok studies have been conducted has stayed within the intersection of the two Antarctic circles then it explains the age of the ice. If it was outside the area, then the argument fails.
The ice station is at 78 degrees 27 minutes latitude. It is 11.55 degrees from the South Pole. According to this polar shift theory the coldest region, the previous Antarctic Circle, was shifted away from the pole 33.5 degrees. The Antarctic Circle ends on latitude 23.5 degrees. This creates an overlap of 13.5 degrees. The oldest, thickest ice should begin at 10 degrees from the pole. It should get progressively older and thicker until reaching the midpoint of the Vesica at roughly 16.75 degrees from the pole. It should diminish in thickness outside the edge of the vesica. The 11.55 degrees of latitude places Vostok well within the vesica.
Now we have to determine the longitude of the displacement. The longitude of Vostok is 106 degrees 50 minutes E which is 180 – 106.83 = 73.17 W longitude on the other side of the world. This places Vostok’s diametrically opposite position in Baffin Bay just west of Greenland. It lies within the present Arctic Circle as expected and if this had been the place of the pole, then Greenland would have been totally within the Arctic Circle. Southwest of this location lies Hudson Bay at 79 to 90 degrees W and 55 to 65 degrees N. This is the presumed location of the previous pole and had it been here, Greenland still would have been within its polar circle. If the pole had been in Hudson Bay then the old southern pole would have been off the shore of Antarctica towards Australia. This is the position assumed above. This confirms that the pole could have moved substantially within the last 400,000 years allowing the ice record found just as it is in Antarctica.
Where then is the crater of this fictional comet? Since we cannot see a typical crater with well-defined edges, we assume no comet hit or it burrowed deep into the oceans. We have good reason to believe a comet of sufficient magnitude to cause the Earth’s crust to shift just a dozen thousand years ago would leave a large sharp crater. Today, brief research on the internet will allow one to view many known comet craters. Before going further, let us look at the ages attached to them, and then let us consider a few known geological facts.
Deep Bay, Saskatchewan, Canada: diameter 8 miles and age 100 million years.
Sudbury Basin, Canada: 5.2 miles and age 1.8 billion years.
Clearwater Lakes, Quebec, Canada (two craters): diameters 20 and 13.7 miles and age 290 million years.
Pingualuit, Canada: 2.14 miles and age 1.4 million years.
Manicouagan, Quebec, Canada: 43 miles and age 212 million years.
Mistastin Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: 17.4 and age 38 million years.
Manson Crater, Iowa: 24 miles and age of 14 million years.
One of the younger craters is in Manson, Iowa. This crater is 66 to 300 feet -below- the surface of the ground. Its presence is known because well drillers have brought up rock cores documenting what lies beneath the soil. It is buried beneath glacial till. In other words, the debris left from the glaciers has covered the crater with a couple hundred feet of soil. One can no longer see it.
One can look at this two ways and draw the exact same conclusion. These glaciers were part of the “Ice Age” that once covered Canada and extended down over Ohio. They moved back and forth across this land gouging deep scars into its surface, and left a line of debris through the middle of Ohio called the terminal moraine. Geologists are suggesting these glaciers also left debris in Iowa. They left so much debris that this 14 million year old crater is buried very deep. The second theory ends the same way. This would be the theory that the north pole was once in Hudson Bay and ice miles deep, more appropriately called the “Old Polar Ice Cap,” once dominated this area just as in the ice age theory. Either way, the ground was leveled in some places by glaciers moving back and forth, and debris piled up in other areas. 14 million years is a very long time, and it is quite believable that Manson Crater is no longer visible on the surface. 14 million years is a lot of weathering and climate changes to endure, and that it is buried deep is completely believable.
Now look at the ages given for the other craters in the list above. All of these craters have location in common. If they are as old as given in current references, then there is a problem. Sudbury Basin at 1.8 billion years is still quite visible. Pingualuit is so perfectly shaped it looks like it was just made. The double pair making Clearwater Lakes has the same problem. Manicouagan was definitely in an area where glaciers prevailed for thousands and thousands of years and it still survived all that gouging and weight that compressed it hundreds of feet into the ground. But Manson in Iowa, 1/15th the age got itself buried right out of sight. Is it not more likely that all of these craters, upon the surface, occurred simultaneous with, or after, the destruction of the glaciers?
It is possible to draw four large round circles in Hudson Bay where the uppermost arrows point in Figure 4. The largest scales to a diameter of 400 miles. The second largest circle to 230 miles. Hudson Bay is very shallow. Yet it was once compressed down 900 feet deeper than it is by the mass of the former ice sheet. The large appendage to the bay in the south is extremely shallow. References differ on the bay’s depth from 111 feet deep in the east to 768 to the northwest. Variations aside, this is a very shallow body of water when the size of it is considered.
This causes a problem if one wanted to prove these are large craters. They are just not deep enough to be craters of this diametrical proportion. For example, Barringer Crater, Arizona is 4000 feet wide and 570 feet deep. Look at the other contraindications. Besides its shallowness, there is no impact ejecta. There may be central uplift in the bay as islands but for the size of it, and the age as required to have brought about the end of the ice age, a mere 14,000 years, there is no deep basin and no high well delineated edge as can be seen in the Pingualuit crater which is supposed to be vastly old by comparison. It does not seem possible that this is a crater. Yet it can be argued that it is.
Delving a bit further, it is known that there is a “large region of below-average gravity” in the area. The anomaly has not been explained. Suggested theories include the weight of the Laurentide Ice Sheet has influenced the area. Another theory suggests that convection in the underlying mantle may be a contributing factor. The 230 mile diameter arc to the southeast is known as the Nastapoka Arc of the bay. The geologists’ consensus explanation calls it an “arcuate boundary of tectonic origin.” In other words they think that millions of years ago the Earth folded in a perfect arc. Another theory, less popular, allows a Precambrian extraterrestrial impact. However, geologists do not feel there is any credible evidence for such an impact crater. There is no evidence from regional magnetic, Bouguer gravity, or geologic studies. That statement directly contradicts the “large region of below-average gravity” with which the paragraph started.
So, how does one explain Hudson Bay is a very recent comet crater 1000 miles by 300 to 400 miles across? Once again, let us just look at what we have. We have a nearly perfect arc in an area that is on average 330 feet deep. This same area was once overlain by an ice sheet two miles thick in certain parts. Two miles thick is 10,560 feet of hard frozen, compacted, heavy ice. This means that if we took a cross section of Hudson Bay when the ice sheet was there and scooped a crater out of it that only dips into the ground 330 feet, the crater was theoretically 10,890 feet deep with little imagination. (See Figure 3.) The bottom of the crater only remains then as the Nastapoka Arc which implies the upper rim, now long melted, was substantially larger in diameter. The ejecta was simply ice, and billions of tons of it which was spewed as far as Siberia to engulf herds of grazing mammoths. It was thrown as far as Scandinavia to leave glaciers there. There was no dust cloud that enveloped the Earth for decades, because water does not create dust. It creates rain. The elongated shape from the northwest to southeast then is either the sideways impact of a comet striking the surface at an angle or the successive impact of several portions of one comet. A sideways impact will add more torque to the reaction of the Earth and aid in turning the outer layers of the planet. The enumerable other craters listed above that dot the northern latitudes may have occurred at the same time or during later events which totally negates their vast ages.
The picture becomes clearer when we comprehend the velocity with which these mammoth projectiles struck the planet. They could not just strike and stick like an arrow in a target. They shattered on impact and bounced in very much the same manner as a stone skips across a lake, except in this case their velocity was unimaginably high. We see directly below Hudson Bay the five great lakes and upon close inspection we see several sections of each lake exhibit the same round cut out pattern as the Nastapoka Arc of Hudson Bay. Once impacting and forming the Great Lakes the debris shattered even further. (See Figure 4.) A rebound impact could not entirely expend the comets’ energy. The debris kept moving albeit at a slower yet still extremely high velocity. It fanned out to the west, southwest, south, east and southeast blanketing and smashing millions of square miles. The impacting debris formed what are called Carolina Bays. The name originates from the thousands of long elliptical, shallow structures that appear throughout the Carolinas. As Kelly and Dachille explained in 1953, they were formed by massive melting icebergs. In other words, they were debris from the shattered ice cap.
Indeed, almost the entire old polar ice cap was displaced from the bitter cold of the Arctic Circle. The ice that was outside the first circle was now -outside of the arctic circle- and prone to melting. We call these areas glaciers and their melting is what we call the ‘End of the Ice Age.’ It is proposed that the glaciers extended into Ohio, not because the weather patterns had changed allowing the Earth to cool but because this area was within the Arctic Circle when the ice formed. During this same period of time, half of Antarctica was dry land and ice free because it was outside the Antarctic Circle. The Earth had gone through a long period of stability and created these extremely large and thick ice layers at the then poles within the first circle. The sea level had dropped and man had happily moved out onto the vast plains left behind by the receding ocean. It was safe. It was beautiful and they were blessed, for a long while.
Earth’s Response to Impacts
To accept that Hudson Bay is a crater and that a massive comet rotated the exterior layers of the planet, we must come to an understanding as to how this could have occurred. Consider these analogies:
A child is pushed on a merry-go-round by applying a tangential force. The more force put into it the more it spins. If the bearings have been recently oiled, junior will go for a great ride. If it has not been oiled, the bearings create drag and heat. The child gets a slow ride and the rest of the parent’s labor (force) is dispersed as heat.
A car goes over a speed bump too fast, throwing the car and passengers upwards. The springs stretch to slow down the vertical rise. It dampens the motion of the car. The car stops its vertical rise and heads back toward the ground pulled down by gravity, while the shocks and springs compress to slow it down.
The Earth is built in such a way that it combines these two systems. It has two bearing and dampening systems in place. They work to save the planet during impacts with planet killing comets. The first dampening/bearing system surrounds the core. The exceptionally dense central core is calculated at nearly 1600 miles in diameter. It is surrounded by a nearly liquid layer of high density 1400 miles across. This central core accounts for 55% of the diameter of the Earth and 30% of the mass. These two inner layers are encased and protected by a layer of rock 1800 miles thick. The surface between the two is separated by a plastic layer. The mass of the solid core becomes the axle in the merry-go-round analogy. The thick liquid layer, 1400 miles across, acts as the bearing at the center of the merry-go-round around which the mass of the outer layers of the Earth rotates in a ‘flash’ if a tangential force is suddenly applied.
A ‘small’ force will not displace the outer layers of the planet around the inner core. The magma layer, the asthenosphere, within the outer crust helps to absorb the ‘small and moderate’ impacts. This is the second dampening system. The energy imparted to these inner liquid layers is retained as increased heat and nuclear reactions. During all impulses, whether caused by small, medium or large impacts, this outer dampening system acts. This system is a series of layers. It begins with the crust which comprises the top 60 miles. Below this is the asthenosphere. This 80 mile thick layer is nearly solid magma-rock. Below it is the rock which encases the inner core. This entire system is considered to be 1600 miles thick, and comprises 70% of the mass of the planet.
This system must behave like any other system and therefore any force that strikes the planet must be broken into components. In this case there is a component acting horizontally (tangential) and a component acting vertically (radially). We have come to believe that the Earth behaves like a rigid body because all forces (impacts) that we have been able to observe have never been of enough magnitude to cause the planet to give up its rigid body facade. What then happens during an impact which imparts both a tangential and radial force to this system? To study the behavior we must separate the two dampening systems: the asthenosphere and the liquid outer core of the inner system.
We study the simplest case first. A ‘small’ impact occurs composed of both horizontal and radial components which is large enough to deform the outer crust and leave a crater. However, it does not contain enough force to act completely through the crust and upper mantle. The Earth in this case behaves as a rigid body in the manner historically accepted.
The next case assumes a larger force. Allow this force (Fy) to act towards the center through this layered system and to be purely radial in nature. It impacts with enough force to affect the asthenosphere. At the moment prior to impact, the asthenosphere has become thick and sluggish with time. The crust/asthenosphere/mantle system has to be able to move instantaneously with the application of large forces or it is in all respects a rigid body. It is the same idea as when one peels a hard-boiled egg. First it is smacked breaking the bond between shell and inner layers, then peeled. Fy breaks the bonds between the upper solidified layers, asthenosphere, and lower solidified layers of rock. It shatters the weakest links freeing them to move via ‘soil liquefaction.’ This impact creates instantaneous heat through transformation of energy which reduces the asthenosphere’s viscosity and allows for freer motion of the layers. It cracks it into action so to speak. The crust distorts forcing the asthenosphere to compress at the point of impact being the first layer of low viscosity. The force is transferred through this layer as a wave until it either meets an obstruction and is diverted in various directions, reaches its counterpart wave from the opposite direction, or disperses. In other words, the impact creates a shock wave that travels through the asthenosphere like a tidal wave. This forced distortion wave bulges against the crust and upper mantle. The outer layers then snap back due to gravity sending the wave back around the planet. The wave continues moving through the asthenosphere until the energy is dissipated. The crust and asthenosphere distorts and rebounds like a ball against a wall and then resumes its shape. The asthenosphere retains the energy of motion as heat by liquefying rock into magma.
Now consider a force that is not purely radial. A horizontal component (Fx) is applied to the system. It is still ‘medium’ in size. The radial component described above causes first a deformation of the crust and then liquefaction of the asthenosphere which in turn lowers its coefficient of static friction. Any horizontal component of force similarly deforms the crust and then acts on the upper boundary of the asthenosphere. If it is unable to overcome the coefficient of friction, the energy must be transformed and heat is absorbed further liquefying this layer. Eventually, at some Fx force level â the crust-mantle/asthenosphere/rock layers will overcome the coefficient of friction between the layer lying above and below it. The bonds will break in succession according to these coefficients. The layers will move against each other just like a hand pushing sandpaper over rough wood. The weakest coefficient most likely lies within the asthenosphere which is composed of magma/rock. The crust will slide over this inner shear plane adding a horizontal shift to the vertical wave component moving through the asthenosphere from force Fy. The Earth will groan into action just like a rusty oiled hinge. The asthenosphere absorbs the force by liquefying further, and we must assume instantly, which reduces its coefficient of friction allowing freer slippage. The energy of movement is transformed into heat and sound. The more it is forced to move to dispel the energy of an applied force, the hotter it gets and the greater volcanic activity follows.
Now, we must speculate further beginning again with a purely radial impact but with an extremely large impact. At some radial force Fy-max the asthenosphere and outer layers of the crust compress to the maximum extent possible. Think of getting punched in the nose. The nose compresses first, then breaks, and then the head flies backwards. The analogy here suggests that at some point the entire mass of the Earth can be shifted. However, before that can happen the inner dampening system takes action. The liquid nature of the core allows the mass of the outer mantle to shift around the dense central core without deformation in the same manner as the springs in a car compress to absorb energy. Conceivably there is always an impact which is large enough to move this entire rigid exterior structure towards the solid core. (See Figure 5.) The mantle can shift at a force equating to 70% of the force required to move the entire planet. It can ‘give’ 1400 miles before the mantle strikes the dense core. It can then rebound 2800 miles until the far inner side strikes the dense core. Gravity is instantaneously pulling the rock mantle layer back to center. The mantle moves laterally back and forth as if on springs shifting around the dense core until the energy is absorbed. Hopefully the mantle only needs to shift a small portion of the available distance. This motion is quickly converted to heat energy and reduced viscosity of the outer core. The dense core does not move relative to its course in space. Its momentum is maintained.
We are now faced with speculating on the last case in which a large horizontal component is applied to the planet’s mantle that far exceeds the ability of the asthenosphere to dampen it. It is safe to say that all large impacts will have a horizontal component if the striking object is small in comparison to the planet. Any horizontal force Fx that acts on the surface of the planet can be considered to act tangentially as a point load. We might envision the construction of the planet as a solid rock ring with an inner, large, free moving liquid bearing around a fixed axle. The distance from the center of the axle to the inner surface of the ring is 2180 miles and to the exterior is 3960 miles which implies that any force applied at the exterior must be resisted at the boundary of the mantle-liquid interface by a force 1.8 times in magnitude. Thus, a comet of large horizontal impact requires an immense response from this system. It is easy to anticipate this response results in a rotation of the entire mantle since the force supplied by the system to sustain rigidity and resist movement is the coefficient of static friction of the liquid-solid interface times the surface area of the core sphere. Liquids are not known for having high coefficients. Although this value is large, it is logical that it would be exceeded prior to deformation of the solid mantle ie. shattering the planet. The result is the integrity of the system is maintained. Energy is supplied to the inner systems to drive the nuclear, magnetic inner workings of the planet until another impulse of energy is received in some future event. We might speculate even further that the system is dependent on these periodic inputs of large energy to maintain equilibrium. It is the explanation as to why the Earth has never cooled.
Translation in the Geological Record
This then leads to pondering the scenario of a 33.5 degree displacement in a north-south direction as suggested by an impact at the pole that moved Hudson Bay south 2300 miles. What slipped in this case? There are three possibilities to be explored: only the crust slipped along the asthenosphere, the entire mantle slipped in relation to the core, or a combination of both happened.
There is geologic evidence which might aid in our understanding. A rotation of the crust of the Earth seen from the side would display an angle across the surface with no displacement at the point of pivot. There should be two such pivot points at 180 from each other. In this case, geographically these are located southeast of Hawaii on the equator and the other on the coast of Africa at Gabon. In the direction of motion, provided the crust does not shatter, there should be maximum change in the surface which results in the maximum change in latitude. (See Figure 6.) This means large portions of the earth moved into different climatic zones. For example, northern Siberia would have been at latitudes lying below 45 degrees making it an extremely congenial climate. The polar ice would have been in the distant far north beyond an ocean warmed by currents sweeping along the Bering Land Bridge and the long expanse of northern coastline at this lower latitude. Siberia would have been a veritable Eden. This would account for massive fruit trees found frozen in the tundra.
Other more dramatic changes to the Earth would occur. As suggested by James H. Campbell and related by Hapgood in “The Path of the Pole,” because the polar diameter of the Earth is 7899 miles and the equatorial diameter is 7927 miles, when a rotation such as described occurs the skin of the planet must compensate. Any circumferential belt that had been on the equator must shrink and any circumferential belt approaching the poles must expand. The difference is 28 miles across the diameter. Hence, as this stretched and displaced skin sucks inwards with the force of gravity, mountains appear to rise. In actuality they are formed by the crust falling inwards 14 miles radially if turned a complete 90 degrees. If the planet’s exterior has rotated as described then the former equator line now rests at 33.5 degrees south below Hudson Bay and 33.5 degrees north on the opposite side of the world and this extra bit of skin must ‘wrinkle up’ as it ‘sucks inwards.’ This means massive mountains should lie in these regions. We find the highest mountains in both the Western and Southern Hemispheres located in Argentina in the Andes. Its highest peak Aconcagua lies at 32 degrees 39 minutes S, 70 degrees W. The highest mountains in the Eastern and Northern Hemispheres are Mount Everest which lies at 28 degrees N, 86 degrees E and Mountain K2 at 36 degrees N, 76 degrees E. They are the two highest mountains in the Himalayas and the world. They are also considered the youngest mountains in the world. This mountain range runs east-west above India and below the largest and highest plateau in the world, the Tibetan Plateau, at 14,800 feet lies between 77 – 95 degrees east longitude. Its proposed prior location would have been directly on the equator. This entire massive plateau failed to subside. It is bounded to the north by another massive mountain chain. Compare these locations to the proposed line of maximum north-south displacement of 80 W and 100 E. Interestingly, the highest of the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Elbert lies at 39 degrees 07 minutes N and 106 degrees 26 minutes W in Colorado. This area lies at the same latitude but opposite the Tibetan Plateau. It is as if something had to be pulled inward at this latitude and the Tibetan Plateau was more rigid which forced subsidence in Colorado to form the Rockies. It is worth noting, the north-south Rocky Mountains would have been previously at 65 to 68 degrees north latitude running essentially along the boundary of the previous Arctic Circle in an east-west direction.
Further evidence of this process should be found in ‘skin stretching’ as it is rotated southwards towards wider equatorial regions. It must expand in a complete 90 degree pivot, 88 miles (18 feet per mile) circumferentially. This suggests a stretch of 30 miles for a 33 degree turn. Within New York State are five or so narrow and deep north-south running Finger Lakes. Cayuga Lake is 38 miles long and 435 feet deep while Seneca is almost as long and 618 feet deep. None of the lakes are more than 3½ miles wide. Similarly, Lake George runs north-south for 32 miles and is very deep. Nearby is Lake Champlain which is 125 miles long and 400 feet deep. Five lakes at 3 miles width equates to an expansion zone in this region directly below Hudson Bay of 15 miles. These are the stretch marks in the skin left by this process.
A Shifting Mantle versus Shifting Crust
Pause to consider further the question of how the Earth’s layers respond. If it is the mantle which rotates and the upper layers do not shear, would subsidence be observed? The mantle is 1800 miles thick. Only the exterior 130 miles is flexible and involved in the process of moving tectonic plates. The maximum subsidence for a 90 degree rotation is 14 miles. In order to create Mt. Everest the crust and upper mantle would only have to subside 5½ miles (the expected 1/3 of 14 miles). This is minimal (.3%) compared to this distance across the mantle. However, the 5½ mile subsidence of the 60 mile thick crust is 9% of the 80 mile thickness of the asthenosphere, which after such an event would be highly fluid. Plate tectonic theory suggests the continents float on the asthenosphere. This implies it is these thin upper layers which actually distort to provide the equatorial bulge while the bulk of the lower mantle resists the pull since it would take eons to shift a rigid structure to recreate the Earth’s oblateness, but only moments to readjust a fractured crust (plates) overlaying a liquid layer compelled to comply with gravity and centrifugal force. If and when the mantle does turn, its bulge is probably negligible. Consider that if a rotated crust does not subside, the asthenosphere will still be drawn from under it toward the equator leaving the crust suspended miles above what it usually floats in. Gravity insures that this situation will be transient if it can even exist.
The affect on the length of the day by an impact should be considered. A shift in a north-south direction should not change the length of the day appreciably regardless of which layer translates. In an east-west, west-east impact, we may deduce that there will be virtually no change until forces exceed the threshold required to cause the mantle to slip. The length of the day is dependent on the angular momentum of the planet and in due course upon its moment of inertia and mass. If only the outer crust, 2.2% of its mass, is shifted then this is a minimal change as compared to the entire mass. If the entire mantle is shifted, this is a change in velocity to 70% of the mass of the planet and the angular momentum should vary according to the direction of the shift no different than the merry-go-round which speeds up or slows down with each push or pull. Perhaps in the case of Hudson Bay, the north-south direction of motion does not contribute to the length of day enough to answer what slipped more, the entire mantle or the thin crust. The exercise does demonstrate that ‘medium’ and ‘large’ impacts can easily change the length of the day and to assume the planet obtained its current angular momentum from its initial formation is to assume the planet exists in a happy bubble of safety.
It would seem then, the Earth has a magnificent dampening and bearing system in place which can be studied by examining the geology of the Earth in relation to a Hudson Bay impact very recently. This system is so marvelous in fact, we are here and able to do a lot of re-thinking. This then ends the concept of ice ages, explains the massive die off of species that occurred in the Northern Hemisphere and South America some 14,000 years ago, and supplies two good reasons why North America was uninhabited during recent epochs of Earth’s long history. It helps fit the bits and pieces of legend together. It adds a whole new chapter to magnetic reversals and geomagnetism. It helps explain global warming as the final step in a long tragic Earth event. It makes us look up and wonder when again.
- Hapgood, Charles, “The Path of the Pole,” Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1966, 1999.
- Kelly, Allan O. and Dachille, Frank, “Target: Earth, The Role of Large Meteors in Earth Science.” Carlsbad, California: 1953.
- Nasa.org: planetary data.
- Turner, Gillian, “North Pole South Pole: The Great Epic Quest to Solve the Great Mystery of Earth’s Magnetism.” New Zealand: AWA Press, 2010.
- Wikipedia Articles at http://www.Wikipedia.org: Barringer Crater, Comet Craters, Earth, Finger Lakes of New York, Highest Mountains in the World, Hudson Bay, Nastapoka Arc, Vostok, Antarctica,Yucatan Comet
Someday we will have a theory that ties all the disparate facts together and explains why the Bahama Platform is 5 miles of limestone.
Perhaps we will.
Great article, thank you 🙂
[…] physique du glissement crustal induit par un astéroïde. Cette argumentation est détaillée ici. Selon Charles Hapgood, le bombardement cométaire a fait glisser la croûte d’environ 30°, […]
To the author, Mr. Freedman. Thank you! Finally. Well done. Will you be in Ashville in June? I will be promoting this theory! email: email@example.com
Im thinking sub ice sheet volcanic activity accounts for the heat needed to melt the ice in such a short period. “the crater was theoretically 10,890 feet deep with little imagination.’ Wrong the ice is a non compressible that transmits the impact force through the ice into the soils/bedrock/plates. surely volcanic activity happened from a cracked mantel. BTW rich pockets of abiotic oil must be everywhere.