 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Rewinding Events Something must have happened, something occurred in both of these places and left similar marks upon the Earth, but what?  My first thought was meteor strikes but how likely would it be for meteors to strike on practically opposite sides of the planet? Twin meteors, at that. Not possible. I was sure of that immediately. Besides, meteors dig out a hole pretty thoroughly. There are no swirls or bits of land left from a meteor, it's a bowl-shaped hole, as shown in the picture of the Barringer Crater in Arizona. IF there is raised material within a crater, it's a center peak and/or distinctive concentric rings, water-like ripples of earth caused from an impact.The Pacific location did not appear to be a crater pattern, nor did the Caribbean side. The latter looked more hollowed out, but not completely enough. And besides, a meteor strike would not explain the deep punches to the northeast and southwest in each place. I looked up historical meteor impacts anyway. Yes, there appears to have been an impact (Chicxulub) which created the Gulf of Mexico and is reportedly the event which served as the beginning of the end for the dinosaurs. I could see that, in a way, at least for the Gulf, but what happened to the rest of the hole? Where was the rest of the circle that is nearly always punched out around an impact site? The Gulf leading into the Caribbean doesn't look like a crater lake. It looks like half of a crater and half... what else? I decided I needed to rewind geologic history, if that was possible. I was still dabbling in geo-phrenology but my journey started to feel like a crime scene investigation. I wanted to know what we know about how all of this was formed and what might have happened. I found out that we know very little and what we think we know is mostly conjecture. In fact, I have yet to find anyone else who has even realized the similarities I've already pointed out for these two sites. Thus I stared and theorized and ran most of those theories into the ground then theorized some more. There had to be a large event or perhaps two large events--- No, I decided it had to be one event which affected both places in the same way at the same time. This ruled out everything 'natural'. By that I mean it would be unlikely in the extreme for ANY single natural occurrence from within, on, or around this planet, to explain both sites. I passed over any space invader theories. Even if they were true, I couldn't very well investigate them, now could I? Short of that, just how big did this event have to be? It certainly looked like something much bigger than even the Chicxulub K-T incident, and occurring sometime after that to have reworked the original shape of the crater? I pulled out a plate tectonics map. I had a vague recollection of another similarity with these two sites. Indeed, while most of the tectonic plates are rather large, usually larger than the continents which rest upon them, there are a few places where the dinnerware looks a bit too cracked. (More detail under Geo-Phrenology) 
One place is the separation of the Sinai Peninsula from everything around it. Another is at the southern tip of South America.
However, there are two highly fractured places which are readily visible. Yes, one of them is that triple junction where the Cocos and Nazca plates meet the Pacific plate AND there is another broken segment there, the Caribbean plate. In the east, those Pacific islands and further upward to Japan are sitting on the most cracked crust upon the Earth. It's broken into several small pieces.
It looked to me like the Earth was punched there by a big powerful fist, from the inside or outside, I couldn't tell. Yet, the fists we know, ie meteors, would not have left anything but a waterhole, especially in the Pacific Ocean. Nor would it make geologic sense for pressure to be concentrated in the two opposing deep spots, not until after the crust was broken. So, that's how big the event has to be? Big enough to actually crack the crust of the Earth? We're not talking about eggshells here. What could possibly do this kind of damage beneath the surface, and above the surface, in similar ways, in two places across the world from each other? Well, it's already clear what conclusion I jumped to. At some point I reeled back through myth, lore, bible stories and whatever. Science certainly wasn't explaining much. To be honest, I'm not sure what precisely made me think of Atlantis. I guess it's just what comes to mind if I think of some destructive force bigger than Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, bigger than nuclear testing, bigger than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, bigger than dinosaur extinction, as big as Noah's Flood, but also an event which was quick and hard enough to not only cause a global flood perhaps, but to actually crack the Earth. Certainly nothing in our recorded history would explain all of that. The biggest baddest destruction that we have ever discussed seems to be Atlantis, and it was the only thing I could think of which might qualify as explanation. We may or may not even have the capability of cracking the Earth's crust today, but I supposed it was possible that the rumors of advanced Atlantean technology could somehow account for the planet's condition at these locations. So, just to run that theory, I needed to think about a myth I never really believed before. Next in Sequence Select From Menu |
 |
|
|
|||
 uicksilver
|
|