Shockwave pattern of The Mississippi Embayment

Just study the satellite view, like I have! Look at the pattern. Study the lines in the topography running from Northeastern Marshall County through Dyersburg, Tn. [where the direction of force of impact finally ends] . Now look at the pattern right above the fault. There is no way that a simple break in the middle of a tectonic plate could produce the design in te topography that is directly above it. Massive amounts of land were pushed in this direction. The evidence is the shape of the oxbows, the huge mound that is The Tiptonville Dome, the old river bed that is clearly viewable, all the circular lines,....

Once you study the detail, it will come to you, I promise. Take the time, tell me what you see and Iwill try my best to give a better discription. I have studied the semi-circular fractures throughout Eastern Arkansas, they point to this structure. I have studied how all the land to the south runs from east to west, just as it should from this impact. It is just as pushing your finger up on a tablecloth, the same design. All this land was instantly turned to "soup"! :-]

Look you meatloaf , you do not even know what the word "COMPLEX" means in geology. You have now busted a rule. "ONCE AN ARGUMENT DEGRADES INTO INSULT, ALL CIVILITY CAN GO OUT THE DOOR.

If you wish to invoke a DUHHH upon me, allow me to provide you with the REAL definition of the word "complex" in geology.
This comes from the AGI's GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGY ed V

A complex is a lithodemic unit mixture of rocks and or sediments of two or more genetic classes that are within a single lithostratigraphic unit. , my insert:[Rocks of different ages get combined within a single lithotectonic unit--It has NOTHING to do with our "inability" to determine their genesis in place ]

To further help out your apparently limited comprehension skills let me expand that to state that a complex is any bunch or rock units that beome included within a single geologic structural event. the word FRANSISCAN COMPLEX is most familiar to non-geologists (like yourself)

I did get a healthy chortle from your own definition though
A complex is in the same ranking as a "suite" or "supersuite" (NACSN, 1983, article 37)

link these satellite views to this thread. Dont just refer to them and then conveniently omit them in evidence

Should I give out the names and tell some good stories?

As you can imagine, I have contacted all that you would think would want to be involved. Yes, I do have several prospects. There are a few professors that are considering making a visit soon. I ran into the problem of contacting the wrongest people right away. I really HAD a lot of respect for these people. They are intentionally trying to distort and cover-up the facts. Who knows, reputations?, the big ole' dollar?, fear of public perceptions?, but I highly doubt just plain ignorance. There are many that alrady know this research is correct. I will have this research studied, investigated, and verified soon.

There is one thing for sure. As for now, the satellite view is there, the rocks are there, the original accounts, newspaper articles, tree growth data, immediate topography [clearly see the rolling hills emanate from this structure],.. is all there. This is not "made-up" The reports, and geological data is all there, waiting to be collected and for all to understand.

So, either continue to teach innocence some delussional false past where the plate just "snapped" one day, created a huge lake, barely killed anyone, didn't really ring the churchbells in Boston, all the lights seen from hundreds of miles away were just naturally occurring earthquake lights, and it was ice and seas to form the same pattern as Reelfoot shows.
Is this what you want to continue? Or would you like to study this alternative to their non-viable theories?
I offer the truths...
Study this impact scenario and learn the truth... :-]

It was a joke. Just as so many's understanding of the NMSZ.

How do you exlain the series of transcurrent lineaments like the Bootheel Fault zone in NMSZ?
You know, the GSA had a bigass filed trip to NMSZ in 2010 and published a field guide that is available to buy at the GSA bookstore (you can get it as an online pub). It has field stops and locations galore.
The overall shape of the fault zone and its connections regionally have been compiled from actual drill holes and field data. SO youre gonna be up against a lot of real world evidence. My only admonition to you is ADMIT what you are making up and dont try your obscurant tricks. Youll find that, for every group of people youtry to dazzle, a coupla old farts will be there whove actually seen what youre talking about or know the history of the whole event and cant be fooled.

You had me going at first because you invoked "SHOCKED QUARTZ" now I know you were bullshitting so your credibility is kinda shot. Pklease dont try to dismiss your behavior as "a joke" I aint buying any more of your crap

Just go to Google Earth, coordinates: 34* 58'31"N x 89* 24' 17.15"W ,should take you to a small field near the center of the basin. Pan out from this point to see that this is the center of the entire embayment. Here are a few good maps and some more info.: http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/student/salley3/index.htm

Please look closely at each line that appears to be original topography [prior to development]. Consider the fact that this is ferttile farmland and iron content from this impact is high. There were several scout reports concerning how broken up the land was and how the water was rust colored in this area. This structure was easily overgrown in just a few years after the impact.

This research will not be anyone's waste of time! :-]

Bzzzzt, wrong! Thanks for playing the game. You just landed yourself in the lunatic bin.

Yes, I know what I am up against [elitest protecting the status-quo] and, yes, all their supposed evidence. The fault just "snapped" why? Pressure from an ice sheet? Tension and torsion from The Juan de Fuca Plate? Erosion from rivers? all the above? or, was it triggered by an impact?

The overwhelming evidence points to an impact. That is what I am trying to show. But this research must be read, studied, and learned to correct history.

Again, I said the APPEARANCE of shocked quartz. I never lied, you misinterpreted.
I have trouble seeing how so much can be misunderstood. Did I somehow piss you all off by just trying to present factual evidence?
It is a satellite view, how is that made-up?
These are unusual rocks, how is that made-up?
There are unusual reports, how is that made-up?
Present theories are not viable, how is that made-up?!

Explain to me what you belive occurred at 2:30 a.m. on December 16, 1811...

Sure, I know what you think, but consider how to create artificial gravity: http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bartgrav/default.htm
A quote "the only way to a nearly realistic feeling of weight would be to create a spinning space station or shuttle" Weight is the force of gravity, and regardless of what many have been taught it is spin force that creates this weight. "Centrifugal force is not a force at all it's lack-of-centripetal force"

But, not really the subject. You have to agree which way erosion flows?

Here is exactly what you said at the opening of this thread (and which interested me at first)

We have this "quote feature" which allows me to post exactly what you said. YOU STATED THAT in a specific location there were rocks withj specific impact associated properties. I just picked on "Shocked quartz" . Its possible that some form of ejecta plagioclase could have been confused with shocked quartz in the extinction position in a microscope. However in your case, youre just trying to bullshit your way out of this lie.
Im not even going to bother asking you about the fallout breccias, or any of the rest of your madeup evidence. Im pissed at myself for not having seen that you were just a bullshit artist who spent time reading the web and then decided to publish some crap like Eric von Deniken.

Oh well, trick me once...

Erosion doesn't "flow", it's a process. Water "flows", and it flows downhill due to the force of Gravity which is not caused by "spin". You really don't have a clue what you're talking about with any of this do you?

If you want to sell a book that's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of nunbskulls out there who will buy it. But don't think for a second that you can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining because I'm (and most of the others on this thread) aren't buyin' it.

...and water erodes... It all follows the terrain toward the equator.
The same process that produces Earth's magnetic field produces gravity: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html The superheated iron core SPINS faster than the surface.
So much of physics is misconstrued. [don't get me started on the photon! ;-]

The rocks do have that appearance. That's not a lie.
Did you look closely at the photos on the site? Look at the circular patterns I am pointing to. Look at the slabs where they are welded, right where I am pointing. How else would this occur?

With all due respect, this is as legit as it gets. I hate to put such an incredible discovery on you all like this, but, although there is so much more evidence I could show, I believe you may have to take all this for what you believe that it may be.

I have stated the facts and given my hypothesis. As anyone who has done this before, one can only argue to this extent of the one's who will listen. I see that you have passion, but is it for the truth? I can assure you that, if you really study this in the detail it deserves, then a meteor impact scenario is the only possible conclusion.

This was not a waste of our time. This was to sort the facts and to find our true history and what really occurred on December 16, 1811.
Thanks...

you havent shown squat.
Im in a barn doing work on my farm right now. Im taking a break and Im typing on an ipad. so Im not going to say again that you are lying about shocked quartz, breccias, nano diamonds . I have a buddy who teaches out at U mo and I sent him the coupla questions and he stated that there were a couple of kooks who were trying to get this hypothesis brought up for discussion. Except he stated(as I figured) none of the evidence supports your story.
Also, you havent bothered to discuss some of the 30 deghree transcurrent faults to Reelfoot and the Rodinian basement data (noone disputes any of that because drill holes are NOT MADE_UP). Drill cores remain at the several repositories able for inspection.


PS, you are confusing Gravity with magnetism and Rosborne is being rather gentle with you. Theres no inner "Dynamo" on the moon, yet there is gravity, there is no dynamo at work on Mars yet there is gravity but no magnetism

Your article actually states that the dynamo helps them "better understand " gravity not default to its cause.

Gravity is a function of mass and distance and is a component of space time.

Although the fault is not the issue, the topography is, all the transcurrent associated faults are also directed from this impact. Look at the design of the fault system, it is shaped like an "X" and is aimed toward this structure.

Though I am discussing what caused the topography above the fault and not really the actual fault system, which may very well be much older than 201 years.

Some say "kooks" others say discoverer ;-]

P.S. Is he the "Weaubleau" guy? Why don't you see if you can get your geologist friend to describe the valley features to me?! :]

Ive looked at sveral sat photos including some SPOT and I wuld like you to post the one that you feel is most representative of your thinking
After all, its your ide and the burden of any proof is on you. If you are so convinced of this bolide smackdown, why not post the act (or any old aerial photos that Google earth keeps on file).
You dont seem to be concerned about how little your credibility is worth after weve determined that most of your "evidence" is in your mind and not really on the earth

HOW and the hell do you think that all this drill hole data has gone and not described a bolide?
Why do you think that anyone would be afraid of finding out that a bolide actually did hit and maybe is associated with an earthquake?You really believe that theres a conspiracy of silence amomng geologists. You then have no idea how competitive the oilfield and academic geos are.
When youre entire career is judged by the mass or importance of your published work, a finding as "earth shaking" as what you have proposed would be a career maker for several academics and their doctoral and Masters candidates. You really have no idea(ALSO, you must get away from believeing that its all about YOU)

Your knowledge base in structural geology is kind of lacking,and any understanding of how various fault sets are propogated is missing.

Of all the 1811 or 1812 newspaper articles Ive read, only one mentioned a "comet" at all and that guy was speculating that the comet had scraped the mountains in California and propogated a shock wave.

I havent read ANYTHING in the papers about anybody describing a hit

WORK HAD BEEN DONE BY b gLASS IN THE LATE 1980'S WHEREIN HE HAD NAMED THE nORTH aMERICAN STREWN FIELD

Ive looked at sveral sat photos including some SPOT and I wuld like you to post the one that you feel is most representative of your thinking
After all, its your ide and the burden of any proof is on you. If you are so convinced of this bolide smackdown, why not post the act (or any old aerial photos that Google earth keeps on file).
You dont seem to be concerned about how little your credibility is worth after weve determined that most of your "evidence" is in your mind and not really on the earth

HOW and the hell do you think that all this drill hole data has gone and not described a bolide?
Why do you think that anyone would be afraid of finding out that a bolide actually did hit and maybe is associated with an earthquake?You really believe that theres a conspiracy of silence amomng geologists. You then have no idea how competitive the oilfield and academic geos are.
When youre entire career is judged by the mass or importance of your published work, a finding as "earth shaking" as what you have proposed would be a career maker for several academics and their doctoral and Masters candidates. You really have no idea(ALSO, you must get away from believeing that its all about YOU)

Your knowledge base in structural geology is kind of lacking,and any understanding of how various fault sets are propogated is missing.

Of all the 1811 or 1812 newspaper articles Ive read, only one mentioned a "comet" at all and that guy was speculating that the comet had scraped the mountains in California and propogated a shock wave.

I havent read ANYTHING in the papers about anybody describing a hit

B Glass and others , in the late 1980's had mapped mikrotektites and coesite and stishovite from a 35 MYold crater (later found to be located under the oligocene sediments of the Chesapeake Bay. This area, called the North American STrewn field , seems to cover sedimenst in the post Paleocene from Mo to South America.

SO a source of something that could form coesite or stishovite is in the neighborhood of 5 to 50 BILLION Pascals. (Thats also a similar energy that could weld the subsurface sediments. WHY HAS NOONE EVER REPORTED THAT DRILL HOLES WERE FULL OF MELTED and therrmally cememnted breccias along with microtektites and coesite at thousands of miles from your supposed site.

NOW, if someone like Billy Glass would say that the western lobe of his NA strewn field is actually yours, then youd have evidence of a bolide that hit maybe 35 Million years ago. (Thats no help to you though is it?)

We know where the crater is for Glasses shocked quartz and tektite field. Its the Exmore Complex in the Chesapeake watershed of Virginia or the nearby, offshore, Tom's Canyon crater on the Atlantic Continental shelf.
Now there are some closer craters to NMSZ that have significant impact deposits, these are the Ames Ok, Crooked Creek Mos, Decaturville Mo,Serpent Mound Oh, sites.

ANY bolide that culd have an effect that you describe would certainly leave tracks on the earth and in its crystal chemistry and geophysics.

Wylie Poag was able to MAP the Chesapeake crater by the USGS geophysics maps . the crater (buried under a K or more of post Eocene sediments) wasdiscovered by several decades of good work. BUT all the pieces were there, which , I believe is entirely different from your case.

I have to go back to work now, Its my shift in the barn

Only kooks say that.

No it doesn't.
So what. That has nothing to do with gravity.

Oh please, tell me about the Photon, I can't wait to hear this.