Mississippi Embayment Astrobleme

HA! I say you deal with myth and legend. I am presenting solid evidence. Please present your "solid evidence" for ANY of the forementioned...

Yes, let us take the Himalayas for example. How do you believe they were formed?
Here is mine- An impact to the Mediterranean by the Moon raised and broke apart Pangaea, approximately 12, 900 years ago [judging by the evidence of pyramids beneath meltrock and the scrarring and scraping still so apparant across the mantle as the American plates drifted forming the Atlantic ocean], this then sent the Indian plate northward against gravity away from the rotation of Earth and against the direction of ocean currents. Understand that this action could only be caused in this manner. This is the mechanism I propose...

and please feel free to give me any evidence you may find for a convection break-up of Pangaea...

["... contemplate on the tree of woe!"... :-]]]]]]]]

I suppose old RP stopped taking his meds again. I wondered why he stopped posting earlier.

your hypothesis would make an interesting comic book. The plowing of India against the underbelly of Asia is only after its entire landmass shleped all the way from the "bottom end" of Laurasia and , moving at the incredibly fast rate of 15 cm/ year "Plowed" into Asia and formed the Himalayas.
I don't really have time to start a GEO 101 course to critique your incorrect conclusions so may I refer you to a couple of classic papers on the sedimentation and structural formation of the Lhotse massif and the Himalayan mts. These ACTUALLY have real evidence to discuss

SEARLE, M. P. 1999, Extensional and compressional faults in the Everest-Lhotse massif, Khumbu Himalaya, Nepal. Journal of the geological Society of London. Vol 156, pp227-240

Rogers, J. J. W. Rogers, and M. Santosh.2001 Continents and Supercontinents.Oxford University Press. pp 76-77, and 240-242.

It was even a faster rate than that!
You must now give the mechanism for the release of the Indian plate from the supercontinent of "Laurasia" [which never existed, as the plates were all seperated by this impact. It was released from the side of the African plate...].
What would or could cause such a catastrophic break?
Why didn't India follow ocean currents?
Why did it move so fast?
Can you even name any other mechanism to come close?

Please give better study to your satellite views... ;-]

It is a shame these impacts have been lost. I imagine the same would occur today...
Another major impact occurred about 2,000 years after the Holocene impact. A comet struck the Hudson Bay, emptying Lake Agassiz, causing further extinctions [Clovis people] and pushed Greenland off to the northeast. [No, an ice sheet did not [and could not have] form the Nastapoka Arc]

http://www.weather.com/news/science/mars-earth-sun-alignment-20140407

I suppose I won't be following this thread or the OP. Enough is enough.

Thanks Kalopin, it's been fun, but I will not engage in delusions with strangers. If I had even a teeny notion you were posting this rubbage as humor, perhaps I would stick around, but if it's just another nerd game like Dungeons & Dragons, I have to pass.

The evidence for these impacts is written in the geography and available to anyone with a satellite view...

I hope you all enjoyed todays lesson.
Tomorrow maybe we will discuss why this can and probably will happen again [and possibly in the near future], as it is somewhat of a weight distribution issue... ;-]

Stop promising the "Cardiff Giant" mr Hunt, if you believe this, have the courage to post the sat photo and let us all see.

If you are saying that "sand blows" are evidence of meteorite strikes I ask you where is the chemistry of coesite and stishovite?
Curious minds want to know

I suppose the lesson is bout ho one can become fanatically obsessed about a myth to the total exclusion of evidence

YOU ARE TRULY THE RAREST OF THESE BIRDS

"There's a sucker born every minute" -Yes, this is true and the hoax is being perpetrated on the innocent public in every school every day...

I have never said an earthquake can't cause sand blows, but I do contend that the sand blows throughout the upper Mississippi river valley were due to the compression of a meteor impact. There would be no chemical signature as there would be no change from an exhumation process.

Yes, this lesson is exactly about "how one can become fanatically obsessed about a myth to the total exculsion of evidence", actually it is about how certain members of the scientific community have taken it upon themselves to commit ["become fanatically obsessed"] to present beliefs that have no basis in reality and no evidence to back any of their delusions up.

Anyone should be able to see the evidence of these impacts as it is clear. They should be learned and appreciated, as they all played a big part in getting us to this point. Extraterrestrial forces have been the biggest givers anf takers of life and have been ignored [until now!]. :-]

Are you even going to try to defend any of your beliefs with some sort of tangible evidence? Convection break-up of Pangaea? The dating process to determine dinosaur bones are over 65 million years? Maybe how an ice sheet formed the embayment? [oh yea, you didn't even know 'bout that one...]

It becomes frustrating to deal with incompetence and such a lack of investigative will. Please go through each and every detail, come back with some form of rebuttal and/or give me some sort of legitimate argument or admit that the evidence all clearly points to an impact scenario.
Thanks!

Do you really want the truth or to just protect the status quo?

Let's examine this:
The Mediterranean is a body of water between Europe and Africa. When Pangaea existed no such body of water would have existed so that claim is suspect.
The Moon struck the Mediterranean area. If the moon struck the earth then why is it in orbit?
How did the moon hitting the earth not take any of the atmosphere with it?
What speed was the moon moving at that the energy of the impact didn't melt most of Pangea when it hit it?

Simple physics says the moon couldn't have hit the earth 12,900 years ago. The moon couldn't have cooled to it's present state or lost atmosphere in that time.

Yes, your "physics" - the equations are flawed, the math is wrong. None of the present calculations concerning terrestrial impacts is accurate. The Chicxulub crater is not big enough and was not a 'hard' enough impact to cause the destruction suggested. Although it was a catastrophe, it was much earlier than is presently suspected: "...The Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction by about 300,000 years..." http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/keller/chicxpage2.html [summary, but please read its entirety]

This has been one of the biggest problems, understanding impact physics. Currently there are many misunderstandings. All the evidence is just now coming out.
The Moon is the remnants of a once habitable planet in a now defunct solar system that was travelling ahead of this one and whose star had went supernova. Being the crystalized iron inner core it received little punishment when contacting Earth's soft outer plates and oceans. The Mediterranean was once part of a massive inland sea, covering most of what is now north America, northern Africa and the middle east. After this impact the Mediterranean stayed a dry crater with rivers, forests and many cities were built, until another meteor impact opened the Strait of Gibraltar to cause another catastrophe: http://tampicoventures.com/Impacts/Europe/Gibraltar/Gibraltar.html "The Formation of the Strait of Gibraltar"

The Moon came in from a very close orbit, as I said, I believe it may have even skipped once before impacting to maybe about one eighth to one quarter circumference, dragging burnt matter to create the Appalachians, pushing and pinching the plate to form the Mississippi embayment, exhuming massive amounts of limestone to raise the Ozarks and then, using this self-made 'tectonic springboard' propelled itself out to a much safer orbit, leaving a much more balanced planet... ;-]

This helps us to get to a better understanding? ;-]

Since your physics is different. Could you give us your calculations as you think they should be for energy in an impact?

So if the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boudery by 300,000 years, how is that even relevant to the moon hitting the earth 12,900 years ago? Are you saying the continents were as they are now 300,000 years ago, then formed Pangea only to be split apart by the moon hitting the earth 12,900 years ago and the result of the 300,000 asteroid strike was returned when Pangea split apart again? Since the moon hitting the earth is required for continent drift then how did the continents form Pangea?

You may want to go ahead and read my thoughts concerning calculations- http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?148759-The-Last-Time-the-Moon-impacted-the-Earth-was-approximately-12-900-Years-Ago

All one need do is study the geography of Earth. Go to any satellite view and give it study. There can be no alternative. Each of the three impacts mentioned has plenty of physical features that I could, in no way be 'making up'!

What thoughts concerning calculations? You didn't have any thoughts.

Of course you aren't making anything up. You are just asking us to believe that gravity changes when the moon hits the earth.

Presently it is believed the K-T was approx. 65 million yrs. ago, so add 300,000 yrs. further back from there to find the date Chicxulub impact occurred. I contend the iridium layer had to occur with this Lunar impact 12,900 years ago, because of "the pyramids in the meltrock" and scarring across the Atlantic...

Spin force causes the land masses to again congeal after some force of seperation[, a massive impact from a large comet or our Moon]. It is my belief that it would take that amount of force to break apart a supercontinent, but that this has occurred on several occassion [Pannotia, Rodinia, Nena,...]. Although I would consider the last Lunar impact, along with the other two at Hudson Bay and the Mississippi embayment, to have been "bullseyes". Each one helping to level and better balance Earth's orbit and extent of wobble. Sending Antarctica to the south and Greenland to the north was, I believe most critical in achieving this present, more stable, orbital path. :-]