I have recently finished a five-year (unfunded) project developing what was to become a very controversial hypothesis.

On the face of it, even I admit that it beggars belief...

BUT once broken down and considered alongside very powerful visual evidence, the hypothesis holds its own.

I have entitled my hypothesis The Impact And Exit Event and as the name suggests I believe I have uncovered strong evidence which indicates that a huge piece of space-bound debris not only impacted with Earth - it hurtled through its mantle and burst out of the other side (i.e. 'the impact and exit event').

Following on from this I then found myself making further, interconnected discoveries on a similar scale elsewhere on Earth and across the Solar System...

This is extremely far-reaching stuff, so you will need to be patient, lock away preconceived ideas and postpone your final judgment until learning further, hopefully via this thread and elsewhere on the Internet.

Anyone interested in further discussion?

Thanks Andy.

Before I begin, will someone please click on the following link to see that it works (strangely, I have found that only Internet Explorer displays the interactive screen correctly - FireFox, for example doesn't):

www.geoplayer.com/gateways/earth.html

An image of Earth should appear, along with the capability to click on it to rotate, zoom in and out etc.

BTW: My username is an acronym for The Impact And Exit Event (just in case anybody was wondering).

Also - I'm not a Lab Assistant - I dunno why I have been promoted! 

Doh! 

Firefox hasn't requested that I install a plugin. Maybe I need to adjust my settings..  I'll take a look.

Thanks.

Marcus: Sorry mate, but Yes.

I do have an explanation for your comments regarding plate tectonics - in fact in my book I take that concept a step further by explaining the mechanism through which plate tectonics originated, and how present day understanding of this is based upon flawed assumptions. I'm afraid that you too have rushed to judgment; you don't know how long it took the Himalayas to build, and of course they are rising; India is not alone moving north. The 'plate' it sits on will be shown to be moving in a similar manner. Finally, you definitely don't know where it 'started from'!
Try looking with fresh eyes and not rely solely on 200 years of erroneous assumptions and you might learn something ...new.

Actually, iaee, having had a look at your website and some of the stuff you've been posting on other forums, I have a couple of questions for you.

1. The currently-held theory is that the Moon is the result of the impact with a planetoid the size of Mars throwing some of the Earth's crust into orbit. This theory perfectly explains the type and relative quantities of oxygen isotopes (particularly ¹⁶O, ¹⁷O, and ¹⁸O) in lunar rocks brought back from the Moon, and the results of mineral mapping done by space probes like Clementine.

On the other hand if, as you claim the Moon was the result of a planetoid going, um, straight through the Earth, then both the nature and quantities of isotopes we would see in lunar rocks would be very different. How do you explain this?

2. You say that your "theory" explains the low relative quantity of iron in the makeup of the Moon compared to the Earth. But studies in recent years have actually shown that there is not that much difference in the relative quantities of iron in the makeup of the Earth and Moon, at least not as much as was once thought. In addition, analysis of iron isotopes in basaltic rocks from the lunar mare show ratios comparable to those found in similar basaltic rocks on the Earth.

However, if the Moon was formed by the process you describe, then one would expect to see far higher quantities of lunar iron. Yet you say that you can explain why there is much less iron on the Moon - even though there actually isn't. Again, the theory that the Moon once formed part of the Earth's crust explains why the relative quantities are about the same.  How do you explain this?

I would be interested to hear your replies to these specific questions, particularly in relation to the isotope abundancies (which I cannot find any reference to on your website).

Lastly,  your book apparently "deliberately avoids the use of scientific terminology", according to your website. So there´s no actual science in the book then.....?

We shall look forward to seeing your observations and evidence posted here.



Andy.

Spinney: Rather than duplicate my answers, I am involved in another thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2121061&posted=1#post2121061

In responding to questions posted over there I have begun to post evidence, some of which I have referred to here.

Sorry, but it would be tedious and time consuming to double up each time.

Good point, Al.
I'm new to discussion boards. My boook only became available online last week so I was also thinking that I would appear duplicitous (i.e 'scheming' ...if you get my drift).
Anyway, a benefit of posting elsewhere is that it has required me to address the problems associated with providing access to visual information for anyone interested in what I have to say. Thankfully, the solution was relatively simple: I will be creating additional web-pages on my site which will incorporate supporting imagery as we go along.

Here are answers to some questions I have been asked (followed by links to the newley created web pages I mentioned earlier):

Presumably there will be an impact structure and an exit structure?

The impact site is already known, but has not been associated with a subsequent exit event. It is the entire Gulf Of Mexico and Caribbean Sea region (not to be mistaken with the Chixculub impact site).

The exit site is surprisingly obvious once the potential for an exit event is accepted as a possibility. NASA's World Wind is a good source. When you look at the second of the two links at the end of this post -  hey presto there it is, exactly where it should be ...in direct linear opposition to the impact site. Also, take a look at the way in which huge amounts of debris from the exit event has been dispersed off in the direction the exiting mass had burst out (westward), and the scale of the entire Impact And Exit Event will become clear.

Try not to easily/instantly reject this - what I am discussing IS there, and there is a lot more evidence upon closer examination of the impact AND exit sites.

Why do you identify them as such?

There are a number of reasons why this is the site of a far larger impact than has previously been proposed. The geology north, northwest and south of the impact site reveals telltale evidence. For example (here I go - don't forget my earlier appeal to park any preconceived notions in order to allow the 'bigger picture' to emerge - please bear with me for a while yet):

Using bathymetry mapping, take a close look at the northernmost end of the Andes mountain range. You will see that the mountain chains appear to seperate as they approach the coast. Significantly, bathymetry allows you to follow the continuation of these 'mountain chains' as they disappear under the Caribbean Sea eastward, before arcing back west until they reach the centre of the impact site.

It will require a lot of objectivity in order to grasp what I am saying.

So, imagine a huge impactor disappearing into Earth. A logical (and natural) immediate after-effect would be the reverse, outward bound ejection of internal magma under pressure from within Earth (similar to a volcanic eruption but on a much, much larger scale). In my book I refer to this (and others) as 'magma columns'.

Now, if possible try to get the whole of South America on screen (either shaded relief or bathymetry). You will then see where this huge magma column fell back to Earth, south of the impact site.

It created the entire north/south Andes mountain range and opened up a huge fracture in the Earths crust.

Then revisit what is actually the base of the magma column as it enters the Caribbean Sea and take another look...

(this is frustrating because there is so much more supporting evidence to add in this particular case, but this posting is already getting too long - I'll try to provide links to the abovementioned images later in order to save you time).

There should also be some kind of anomaly in the mantle and core.

In my book (page 120) I refer to the findings of a team of researchers at Arizona State University that 'Deep within Earth, halfway to its center in an area where Earth's core meets its mantle, lies a massive folded slab of rock that once was the ocean floor'.

The location of this massive folded slab of rock? Directly underneath the impact site of my hypothesis. There's your anomaly  

Further evidence of the scale of the impact event lies to the north and north west of the Gulf Of Mexico. It is the nature, direction, composition and geographic footprint of the entire Rocky Mountains up to and including Canada and Alaska (a link to a supporting image follows).

The timing of the event will also be important. When do you believe it happened?

I have no idea! Although I'd really like to know too...


...and why?

Matt. I lalso have no idea if you will eventually buy the book or not, but the impact and exit event element is but the final phase of a whole series of events that originated elsewhere in the Solar System. The rest of the book details how and why Earth became the victim of this event ...and what the geological after-effects were across the globe.

Take a look at the following two links which cover some of the points raised to date (I have included my comments on each page):

http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/north_america_screenshot.html

http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/takla_makan_screenshot.html

This link will take you to a page on my site with bathymetric images of the fallen, 'Andes' magma column:

http://www.theimpactandexitevent.com/the_andes_web_page.html

Hi JLG.

My response to your first question about the age of the Moon lies in the '?' at the end of your question.

Dating the creation/formation of the Moon is beyond me and my laptop. I'm really not being facetious here, just pragmatic.

The '?' sums it up.

Re: Your reference to plate tectonics (and by definition the continents which sit upon them). This is an interesting conundrum.
Am I correct in reading into your post that the findings of your research indicates that plate tectonics was already happening prior to the birth of the Moon?

Re your reference to Vaalbra etc: Some may contest the existence of the various proto-continents and supercontinents you have quoted. I don't, simply because my hypothesis incorporates the separation of Earth's crust into several continents, all of which rest upon 'plates'.

The timescales you refer to are, in my opinion at the very least questionable. 3.1 BILLION years ago?

Someday I believe that we will have to wake up to, and address the way in which such impossible-to-reconcile dating is offered for general consumption as fact.

Think about it. 3 point 1 billion years.

Dear me, wikipedia.

LOL...is this supposed to be serious?
Quote:
I have to disagree - I think most people will easily be able to comprehend the importance of what is presented. It HAS no importance.
Look buddy - this is a science forum, not a book club. If you want anyone to take you seriously then I suggest you start by turning yourself from a novice into someone who actually knows what they are talking about. A great way to do this is via peer review. If you think you have some 'astounding new insights' then why not submit a paper to Nature or one of the other peer-reviewed journals of repute?

I strongly object to this thread - it is nothing other than an attempt to spam this book.

Bikerman wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 6:26pm:


I concur.