Two crackers sent in by William. Number One is www.yahoo.com/news/second-space-rock-hit-earth-032125937.html … a second space rock hit the earth after the one that is said to have killed the dinosaurs. The first one struck the Yucatan and another struck the Ukraine, 650,000 years later. We may note that time distance is based on uniformitarian geochronology and in reality, may have been much closer in time. The calculations are outlined in the study at https://advances.sciencemag.org/7/25/eabe6530 … the Chicxulub crater, and now, the Boltysh crater [lake] was originally considered by scientists as much closer in time, and both were thought to have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. With this new study, that idea has gone out of the window, solely due to a lavish adherence to geochronological time scales. The catastrophic impact of an asteroid or comet strike would have produced instant sedimentary processes. Dating those sediments in a uniformitarian manner is skewing the data. Or that is one way of looking at it.
The second one is at https://news.yahoo.com/earth-tipped-over-side-84-005143706.html … where we have a Velikovsky type event – dated to a remote period [the Cretaceous, once again]. We might ask, can an asteroid hitting the earth cause it to tip over? That question is not asked as geochronology once again muddies the waters. The tipping over is dated 84 million years ago – some 20 million years prior to Chicxulub. The planet tilted 18 degrees – which would have moved New York as far south as Florida. A planet tilt might explain the North American Interior Seaway in which the bodies of so many dinosaurs have been discovered. Not mentioned. Too outrageous it would seem.
Apparently, we are told, earth's crust can shift like this depending on how weight is distributed across the planetary surface. Well I never. That is a new one. Mainstream has always been keen to jump on the idea of the poles moving, or tipping over. The idea of melting ice, or the drainage of lakesand the building of dams, causing small movements of the geographical poles, has become part of the climate alarmist propaganda so this may lie at the root of the claim the crust can shift. One of the scientists says we should imagine the earth as a chocolate truffle, a viscous centre surrounded by a hard shell. The idea is that the crust and Mantle rotated around earth's outer core – and back again. The story also popped up on the SIS Eric Aitchison chronology thread, posted by Ken Griffiths. He visualised it as confirmation of his own explanation of the Long Day of Joshua, a tilt at the axis of rotation – and back again. However, it is important to note the new study is only concerned with an event in the Cretaceous. It behoves anyone suggesting a connection with a later event to come up with the evidence – in a geological context. See the full article at www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23803-8 … which can be printed off for later reference and reading on the sofa. The abstract preceding the article begins by telling us 'true polar wander, or planetary reorientation, is well documented for other planets and moons …' which makes you wonder why mainstream is generally adamant it has never occurred on earth. What is being suggested in the article is not a movement of the poles as such but a tilt at the axis of rotation. The idea the projected tilt returned to upright [thereby not unduly upsetting the mainstream position] after 5 million years is actually also a relic of geochronology, and dating sedimentary limestone in a uniformitarian manner. The period could have been much shorter. At the same time one has to congratulate the authors of the new paper as they have put earth tilt on the front page of the media and inside a major journal. They may also earn themselves a lot of rebuttals as other scientists come out of the woodwork to defend the mainstream position. It seems to be another study in a long line of such papers regarding geomagnetic anomalies in rocks and so forth. Very often they seem to accompany or go hand in hand with catastrophic events – such as the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion. Let us hope a steady trickle of such information continues to be published. It is not necessary to produce a block buster – which can be shot down in flames. This is what occurred with the Younger Dryas boundary event projection. It unleashed a lot of kickback and we are left in a sort of limbo – you are either for it or against it [and interpret the evidence depending on which side of the fence you sit]. A steady trickle has time to seep into the subconscious and in the long term is more acceptable.
PS … the idea of the magnetic poles reversing or tilting is now a field of research with many papers on the subject and one might bracket this one as part of that genre. For example, the Laschamp Event, around 40,000 years ago, involved a magnetic reversal that once again righted itself not long afterwards.