Discovery: Genesis, the World’s Largest Impact Crater

This is a follow-up to my earlier two posts regarding the discovery of a 2,000-year-old map and identification of the one place on Earth matching the scale and layout of Plato's Atlantis.

These were samplings from a book in progress which is now complete: Maps, Myths & Paradigms.

Those articles covered subject matter from the first half of the book and provided an analysis of ancient maps of the Antarctic continent and Plato’s detailed description of Atlantis in conjunction with modern maps. This post pertains to significant findings contained in the second half comprising the analysis of modern maps and the challenges they present for our current geological paradigm.

I. Kamchatka: New Origins
II. Genesis

The progression seemed natural. While I had discovered a location that matched the scale and layout of Plato’s Atlantis, the observation by no means validated the site as the true location of Atlantis nor confirmed that the fabled civilization actually ever existed. Still, Plato’s description of two continents beyond the Mediterranean—Atlantis and a second large continent opposite a path of islands—is a remarkably accurate description of the Americas and the Caribbean islands that link the two continents. It left enough of an impression that I decided to pursue the Atlantis tale to the next level. I set out to identify the scope and the source of the cataclysm that potentially befell Atlantis. Plato’s account appeared to describe a global event with earthquakes occurring inside and outside the Mediterranean, potentially as far away as South America.

I. Kamchatka: New Origins
So began my research into a global cataclysm. Early on in the process, I discovered that a series of peninsular formations along the Asian coast did not all originate as geologists currently maintain. These peninsulas included Kamchatka, Korea and Japan—an island that was once a peninsula prior to becoming fully detached in the north. It would appear that plate tectonics, or more specifically continental drift, started off on the right path recognizing that continental plates do fracture and separate. Most are aware of this very basic concept and the oft-referenced example of the Americas’ original fit with Africa across the Atlantic.

The conforming coasts of the Americas and the African continent across the Atlantic drove the belief that these landmasses had fractured and separated apart. This belief would be the basis for the eventual formulation of the plate tectonics theory.

Inexplicably, other very clear instances of fractured continental mass and separation were overlooked in favor of more complex and inconsistent processes of plate movement and plate generation that supported key aspects of plate tectonics. I believe Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea are all products of fracturing and separation much like the Americas and Africa. While geologists agree that Japan fractured free from the Asian coast, many believe Korea is the product of colliding and stacking continental fragments. Meanwhile, Kamchatka is believed to have originated as a series of volcanic islands that erupted up from the seafloor due to friction generated as the Pacific seafloor plate subducted beneath the Okhotsk Plate. Geologists claim that over time these islands grew together and eventually attached to the Asian mainland forming the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Current theory: Geologists currently maintain that the Kamchatka Peninsula rose up from the seafloor as multiple volcanic islands that eventually merged together into one large island. Over time this large island expanded further to the north until it merged with the Asian mainland forming the peninsula that exists today.

Had there been a continued focus on fracture mechanics, geologists would have recognized that Kamchatka was the product of fracturing and separation. In support of this new theory, the image below clearly shows that the Kamchatka Peninsula fits perfectly into a conforming pocket along the adjacent Asian coast. Not only does the coastal pocket exhibit a conforming point at the end and hump across its top, there are two isolated coastal points on each landmass that line up perfectly when the two are brought back together. These two coastal points were once joined together as an isthmus.

New theory: A merged image of Kamchatka nestled back into an adjacent conforming pocket along the Asian coast. Two lone coastal points come back into perfect alignment (top center) further confirming the ancient fit.

The Kamchatka separation represents two types of fractures: brittle and ductile. A brittle fracture is the type of fracture witnessed when an object like a ceramic vase is broken. The fragments exhibit little to no deformation so the fragments can oftentimes be reassembled and glued together nearly restoring the broken object to its original form. Brittle fracturing is exhibited along much of the span between Kamchatka and the Asian coast.

Ductile fracturing can be demonstrated by pulling apart a pliable, soft material like heated plastic. Pulling it apart leads to thinning and deformation of the mass until it finally thins too far and separates in the center. The two coastal points demonstrate this type of fracturing. Whereas most of Kamchatka broke free of the Asian continent via brittle fracturing, a small lone pliable region resisted immediate fracturing. After extending and thinning to its limit, the ductile isthmus fractured apart at its center and Kamchatka pivoted out in a counterclockwise direction from the Asian coast and onward to its current location.

I believe this discovery will be difficult to refute. The alternative is to retain the current plate tectonics view and believe that the peninsula randomly coalesced into a shape matching the Asian coast and for good measure generated a lone squared-off coastal point matching one inside the accommodating coastal pocket. It is like someone selling you cloth as hand-woven fabric while a torn flag with the same pattern flaps about immediately in the background. Sure, there is always the chance that coincidence is at play, but more than likely not.

II. Genesis

Soon after determining that fracturing formed the linear array of coastal peninsulas, it became clear that Kamchatka, Korea and Japan were downward facing splinters, a pattern of coastal fracturing that suggested an impact from above. This initiated a search to the north of Kamchatka for signs of an impact. It was there that I discovered a unique pattern resting at the bottom of the Arctic seafloor.

The pattern exists as a sediment deposit forming a layered, terraced pattern with a very noticeable trend of arcing; the terracing pattern arcs back toward the Lomonosov Ridge at each end. This slightly distorted semicircular formation also gradually rises up nearly a mile from its lower inside layers to those forming the outside of the arc. Meanwhile, there exists a compact island set, Franz Josef Land, which—when the Gakkel expansion zone is closed back together—is centered within the arced terracing. Why is this significant? Prior to the opening of the Gakkel expansion zone, Franz Josef Land and the unique arced terracing formed the inner components of a complex crater. Complex craters comprise a central uplift similar to Franz Josef Land, which is formed at the crater’s center, surrounded by arced terracing which rises upward and outward to the crater’s outer rim. Terracing forms as a portion of the rim collapses downward to the base of a crater. Franz Josef Land and the surrounding terracing are remnants of the Genesis impact crater.

Animation closing the Gakkel expansion zone and bringing Genesis’ central peak back to the center of the crater’s outer terracing. An overlay of the Theophilus lunar impact crater demonstrates this relationship of a central peak and the pattern of terracing which encircles it.

The Gakkel Ridge in the center of the expansion zone, and by extension the mid-Atlantic ridge, are products of a radial fracture generated by the Genesis impact. Meanwhile, the crater’s rim, the surrounding coasts of North America and Eurasia, vacated the immediate region shortly after impact. The only fragments of the rim to remain in place lie to either side equidistant from Franz Josef Land. From the span between these fragments and the width of the terracing, we can discern that the size of the Genesis crater was roughly 715 miles across. This is several times larger than the Vredefort Crater—currently the planet’s largest confirmed impact crater—which prior to erosion sat at 100 to 190 miles in diameter.

So what sort of effect would an impact of this magnitude have on our planet? I believe the impact completely transformed the northern hemisphere and transitioned the entire planet from one with a single unified crust to a planet with continent-sized fragments separated by vast oceanic basins.

The Genesis Hemispheric Impact Structure (GHIS): A circular concentric pattern of continental plate compression comprising the largest and tallest mountain ranges extending down from and around Genesis and the resulting internal shear fractures comprising the largest and deepest inland bodies of water that run parallel to the compression zone.

The above image reveals the immediate effects of this impact: the Genesis Hemispheric Impact Structure (GHIS). Extending down from the impact are two compression zones, one along the coast of Asia and the other along the coast of North America. The increased compression on the Asian continent, as witnessed in the buildup of the Himalayas, reveals greater displacement of continental mass. This is significant because the downward-facing peninsular splinters along the Asian coast indicated that the Asian continent had indeed shifted past the North American continent during the impact. The resulting shear fracture would eventually open up becoming the Pacific Ocean.

The entire pattern of compression extends down and then veers completely around the Genesis impact crater. There are two exceptions: the Sierra Madre, which were originally aligned with the Appalachian Mountains prior to the opening up of the Gulf of Mexico, and the Appalachian Mountains, which were in turn aligned with the Atlas Mountains in North Africa before the opening up of the Atlantic. This forms a compression pattern that, at the time of impact, was one continuous structure extending directly down from and entirely around the Genesis impact crater. It and all the landmass to the north also comprises just under half of Earth’s continental mass. The Genesis impact generated a path of compressed mass that encircled the entire northern hemisphere of a planet 54% Earth’s current size, therefore supporting the possibility that we live on an expanding Earth.

This compression ring represents a substantial amount of crustal displacement and similar to the shearing that occurred between Asia and North America, shearing also occurred above the compression zone. The planet’s largest and deepest inland bodies of water form a highly discernible ring paralleling the compression zone. These deep basins are a series of crustal shear fractures formed as the mountains compressed and displaced a substantial amount of continental crust alongside the stationary crust lying to the north of it.

List of inland bodies of water that form the inner ring of the GHIS sorted by size. Rank represents size rankings among world’s lakes.

Based on this new impact theory, mountain ranges believed to have formed hundreds of millions of years apart were actually formed within minutes of each other. Geologists currently maintain that larger majestic mountain ranges like the Himalayas and the Rockies were formed more recently while mountain ranges like the Appalachians are much older. They assume that lower ranges were once similar in height to the Himalayas and the Rockies but have been subjected to hundreds of millions of years of erosion.

Currently, the age of most mountain ranges roughly correlates with their height. Shorter ranges are believed to be far older, having experienced hundreds of millions of years of erosion. Accepting the existence of the Genesis impact, we find that ranges like the Atlas and Appalachian Mountains are lower because they were formed on the back end of the impact, while the Himalayas and Rockies grew out of the direct linear force of the impact. More importantly, all these mountain ranges were formed within minutes of each other and not over the span of hundreds of millions of years.

Continued…