Cratering Earth

In the early 1960’s astronomers were hesitant to recognize impact cratering on the moon, because that would suggest the lunar geomorphology came about in a different manner than that on the earth. Are we in the opposite situation now?

Is an astral-impact the only explanation for the evidence presented on this website? I am sure it is not, but I cannot think of any other viable explanation. The likelihood of all of these concentric lines and shear center ringing the globe would be a HUGE coincidence or there is something behind all of these topography and gravity patterns.

Numerous times I show that the pattern of shear does not conform to that predicted by Plate Tectonics. It requires innumerable point thrust/shear of all different sizes acting in a precise sequence to get the geomorphology we see today. Making the assumption that the same forces shaped the Earth as the Moon, impact produced scarps on the Moon bear a striking similarity to the scarps on the Earth, and the Pacific FZ’s structures in particular. Since we find very similar structures on the earth as on the other heavily cratered surfaces of our neighbors, how likely are they to be produced by different sources of shear?

We need to ask ourselves, if the Pacific Fracture Zone’s structure and other geomorphic features of earth were found on the Moon or Mars, would anyone have trouble suggesting they were astral-impact related? Of course we have to recognize that were the craters on the moon found on the earth, they may well not be recognized as astral-impact craters, because geologist have no idea what form the shock induced changes would take in multi-ringed craters of multiple thousands of kilometers in diameter.

If you are just starting out on your journey to comprehend this material, I will warn you, it is a steep learning curve, but you can do it if you are persistent. It has taken me 15+ years to figure this out, so give yourself some time with persistence. If you are already a geologist, you will have to relearn several concepts that I see as wrong. If you are not a geologist, but have on occasions asked the question of a rock, “Why?” then you are at the right spot.

The Chapters form sort of a textbook of the subject. I suggest they be studied in order, but if a future topic strikes your fancy, read it first, then read the chapters before to understand the new vocabulary of words and ideas.

The Topics are articles that I want to write because the geology and impacts fascinate me. Yes they were mostly written after the chapters were finished, so they assume you know as much as I did after writing the chapters. But, if they inspire you to go back and see why I came to that conclusion, then read in any order you want.

Above all, do use Google Earth and Global Gravity Anomaly or other gravity maps to check my ideas. I recognize the writing style is often pedantic and technical, with a new vocabulary. Give yourself a chance to learn it. If you have questions, feel free to ask. But, please remember, I can share the evidence with you, but I cannot make you understand it. And, ignoring the evidence does not make it go away. If you have contrary evidence about sources of shear, I want to hear it, but the ultimate genesis of gravity feature is the only assumption. My assumption is they are astral-impacts, the same as is assumed for the Moon, Mars, and Venus.