It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Discovery: Genesis, the World’s Largest Impact Crater

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 12:33 AM
a reply to: Doug Fisher

Excellent article and very informative, up until now I thought the one in Greenland was the biggest.

S&F and a big Thank you..

posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 12:52 PM
a reply to: Doug Fisher

Thank You for the reply

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 07:25 PM
a reply to: Doug Fisher

Is the impact site not the north pole area?

If i understand our solar system at all is that most meteorites do not fall so far north.

Poor metaphor for our solar system is that if you had a Man sized spinning top on a baseball field ( earth in solar system) and the meteor being a baseball hurled as a curve ball from a pitcher on the same relative horizontal plane. ( solar system spins, orbits and gravity stuff) The ball would be more attracted to the equator zone (loosely).

If anyone was able to follow my train of though, would this mean that discovery of Genesis could make people realize that an impact from a meteor not only creates the tectonic plates but forced an adjustment to the planets tilt? (maybe the wobble too?).

Am i making any sense to anyone?

edit on 19America/ChicagoWed, 19 Dec 2018 19:27:40 -0600000000pm2018-12-19T19:27:40-06:0031272018-12-19T19:27:40-06:00 by Heruactic because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 07:56 PM
a reply to: Heruactic

If i understand our solar system at all is that most meteorites do not fall so far north

Have a look at the Moon. Plenty of impacts at, and near, both poles.
edit on 12/19/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 06:37 PM

originally posted by: toms54
It's an interesting read and it does explain some facts. However, it's horrifyingly radical as it contradicts nearly everything I have ever read in my entire life about continental drift and plate tectonics.

originally posted by: watchitburn
This is very interesting, but tying it into the expanding earth theory is a step further than I'm prepared to go.
A great read though either way. Thanks again.

One more comment on the horrifyingly radical —toms54 words. I prefer uncomfortably radical :-) —move from the comfort of the established plate tectonics theory to the unease of the far less popular and oft-ridiculed expanding Earth theory. Any dynamic that drives Earth expansion is certainly complex at best and impossible at worst. It has driven and continues to drive a desire to cling to the less complicated concept of a static Earth. But that need to adhere to the simplicity of a static Earth has necessitated the introduction of complicated and sometimes seemingly outrageous theories to explain surface patterns with easily observable origins.

Kamchatka’s true origin is a discovery that geologists may easily adapt to plate tectonics as it does not contradict the theory, but this new find still provides a very clear, undeniable glimpse into how a simple observation was overlooked in favor of an elaborate and erroneous theory that falls in line with plate tectonics. Geologists are still wrestling with their current theory as they struggle to explain Kamchatka’s parallel rows of mountains when subduction can only account for the creation of a single row. The clear answer is that the mountains were formed during the Genesis impact while Kamchatka was still merged into the side of Asia. The valley that lies between the two Kamchatka ranges extends out to the peninsula’s point and aligns with a valley on the Asian continent when pocketed back into the coast.

This complexity extends to the Genesis Hemispheric Impact Structure also introduced here. Compression and shear fracturing go hand-in-hand with an impact and provide a rather simple, straightforward explanation for the concentric paralleling rings. Geologists have not, to the best of my knowledge, demonstrated an awareness of this pattern. It would be interesting to see how geologists do address this. Again, within the plate tectonics model, something so clearly observable has been overlooked for the more complex and relatively impossible. Plate tectonics asks us to believe that this circular concentric pattern is the product of happenstance, the result of randomly colliding and separating continental plates. It also requires impeccable timing on our part to exist precisely at a time when this random alignment has come together and prior to it breaking up further with sections meandering about across the surface of a static Earth.

Here is another example of a simple and straightforward observation from an Earth expansion point of view, which has necessitated one of the most remarkable theories associated with the breaking up of plate tectonics' theoretical Pangaea. In the image below, you can clearly see the seafloor crustal age between the Americas and Africa is identical to the crustal age between Africa and India. The Central Indian Ridge marks the location where East Africa was once merged with Asia similar to how the Mid-Atlantic Ridge marks the location where West Africa and Europe were merged with the Americas before separation.

Müller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. NOAA / NCEI.

This poses a huge problem for plate tectonics as Africa could have been attached to the Americas or Asia but not both simultaneously on a planet Earth’s current size. It is akin to fitting a baseball cover over a basketball; moving a section to one side for attachment increases the gap to the other side. Of course, fitting Africa to both the Americas and Asia simultaneously on a much smaller Earth is no problem and would explain the readily observable.

The plate tectonics’ fix: Asia, in the form of India, was attached to Africa, and through the miracle of forces that can neither be seen nor proven to exist, was propelled away from Africa with such force that it plowed through an ancient theoretical seafloor compressing it upward into the Himalayan Mountains while opening up the Indian Ocean behind it. Some might suggest that that is a ‘horrifyingly radical’ theory if it were not for the fact that we have all had it ingrained into us from childhood.

Therefore, I believe it really comes down to two very clear options:
1. Accept the very simple and logical belief that the world maintains a static size and
.......Adhere to inconsistent and fantastic explanations for the formation of rather basic surface patterns, or
2. Accept surface patterns for what they clearly appear to be with regard to fracture mechanics but
.......Adhere to something as fantastic as a planet that expands.

In Maps, Myths & Paradigms I address many of these surface patterns including a multitude of overlooked fractures of some significance and the true origin of ridges currently claimed to be the product of invisible forces known as hotspots or mantle plumes. I hope to post soon on some of these findings and how they disprove subduction, which of course forms the foundation of plate tectonics.

Until then, I will leave you with this one last thing to consider: Aside from the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, proposed hotspots/mantle plumes rode divergent boundaries throughout the globe from the breakup of Pangaea until 30-50 million years ago. This is confirmed by mirrored seafloor ridges either side of expansion ridges that extend from continental mass and truncate at the edge of this newer crust. How did deep subsurface mantle plumes know where surface structures like divergent boundaries exist so as to ride them so perfectly throughout the globe for over 100 million years? And why did they all simultaneously and suddenly jump to one side or the other 30-50 million years ago truncating these ridges? And if they did indeed jump to one side, why do we not see any sort of extension of the ridge on that particular side of the divergent boundary after 30-50 million years of plate movement?

edit on 12-31-2018 by Doug Fisher because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 10:42 PM
Just got my book! Super interesting stuff and the graphics and images make it so much more digestible, well done.

posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 11:36 PM
a reply to: SmokeyMorgan

Very cool. I am definitely looking for feedback, so if you have any questions or comments I would love to hear from you and others that have made the leap. Reply here if it fits the topic or you can contact me via

All the best,
Doug Fisher

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in