Cosmic Warfare

THE NEW DEBATE OVER THE KT BOUNDARY LAYER EVENT

Here's one that I think you'll enjoy, and which I find almost endlessly fascinating. But first, a little background. In my book The Cosmic War I outlined the Exploded Planet Hypothesis of the late astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern, who published a fascinating book on the subject (dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets). Briefly, Dr. Van Flandern revived the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century theories within astronomy that the asteroid belt are the remains of a planet that exploded some 65,000,000 years ago. That event sent one bit of that planet's debris, according to this version of Van Flandern's theory, into a collision course with the Earth. And that collision was what geologists then ascribed to the KT boundary layer and the extinction of the dinosaurs, again, some 65,000,000 years ago. (Of course, we're simplifying a great deal here folks).

Now, for Dr. Van Flandern, this was significant, for in running mathematical computations of the orbits of comets backwards in time, he discovered that they statistically pointed to a point of origination in the asteroid belt, at either 3.2 million years ago, and 65 million years ago. The choice, for Van Flandern, was clear: astronomy, and geology, were pointing to an event - a catastrophic event in our solar system - some 65 million years ago.

This is where the story took, for me, another interesting turn, for Dr. Van Flandern then considered a number of models of why planets might just suddenly and spontaneously explode, and he considered two: an explosion through some sort of natural fission reactor that went critical, not, as he himself admitted, a very happy model. The other was an explosion due to a total annihilation reaction of matter coming into contact with anti-matter. This led Van Flandern to speculate that perhaps somehow - somehow - a quantity of anti-matter had built up inside the planet through some unknown mechanism of containment, until the containment failed, and....well...the rest is speculative history. The problem here, of course, is the implicit assumption contained in such a speculation, namely, that there even can exist such quantities of anti-matter in the first place, and secondly, that it can be contained... again, the model was not very satisfactory, and as I pointed out in The Cosmic War, one senses in reading Van Flandern's book that he was not terribly happy with it either. Which led him to propose a final model, one completely different:

The planet had blown up through deliberate and intelligent action... Van Flandern suggested some sort of horrible experiment gone tragically wrong... but it is also clear that it could also have been deliberate altogether, i.e., an unimagineable act of destruction...in a war.

That, of course, was where I picked up in The Cosmic War, noting various texts that seemed to imply just such a thing, on just such a planetary scale, though, in that book, in spite of the geological evidence for the KT boundary 65 million year event, I opted for a much more recent event of 3.2 million years ago, based on textual considerations of ancient texts.

Well, here's an article that may send everyone back to the chronological speculation drawing boards:

1. Chicxulub predates the KT boundary and is not the cause for the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Evidence from NE Mexico

Now, this would seem to de-couple the exploding planet hypothesis from the KT boundary layer event, as Van Flandern argued it, since he had, as I outlined in the Cosmic War, originally himself preferred the 3.2 million years ago date for the explosion of "Krypton", but changed his mind to the 65 million year ago event precisely for the reason that it juxtaposed with the KT boundary layer and the assumption that the asteroid impact occurred at the same time, causing it.

Now, you might think this is good news for my dating preference for the exploded planet, but it may not be, since if one maintains the view that the Chicxulub event is to be coupled with the exploding planet hypothesis, then this would push the date even further back, yet, it would seem, without the tidy correspondence to Van Flandern's comet orbit calculations.

Bottom line: we may all have to do some re-thinking folks!

See you on the flip side.

26 thoughts on “THE NEW DEBATE OVER THE KT BOUNDARY LAYER EVENT”

  1. I know I’m late to this party, but I know an interesting bit of evidence re: the K/T boundary.

    I returned to college in my late 40s, graduating when past 50. A degree in botany with a forestry minor. I was too old to buy into the trend of specialization with disinterest in anything outside one’s narrow field.

    My particular thing was forest soil ecology, but I took the time to do a few courses in paleobotany. My project was conifer species, and I prepared maps with as much data on fossil records as I could find. Especially from Greenland, Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia. Coincidently, someone else in the class was doing Nothofagus (Southern Beech,) a southern hemisphere tree. Neither of us was interested specifically in the K/T boundary. We were looking at fossil distributions and how they changed over time.

    At the time (late 90s) another leading contender was a gamma ray outburst from a supernova. But what my classmate and I found was that whatever happened during the K/T extinction, the poles weren’t affected much at all! Gamma radiation would have hit everything. We took this as support for the possible Yucatan meteor. But whatever happened, an adequate theory has to account for the data we found.

  2. Robert Barricklow

    Ever hear of the Operations of DVD Dachau,
    Illuminati Intelligence Oversight?

    1. Robert Barricklow

      This “DVD” originated with an article I read in Veterans Tocday,
      “London – Colorado: A ‘Sea of Terrorism Around US’ ” by Michael Shrimpton.

  3. I now profess complete ignorance as I function primarily in German (since 1976) and not in English anymore- could anyone please help me by explaining what the initials KT stand for?- I’m afraid I’m pityingly behind the times in deciphering some English abbreviations

    Larry in Germany

    1. Robert Barricklow

      K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous peroid & T is the traditional abbreviation for the Tertiary priod.

  4. Robert Barricklow

    Could there have been several “conflicts/wars”?
    Could there be something in the “time” dating analysis that is missing an “exotic weapons phenomenom”, with respect to time itself?

    1. G’day Robert,
      I am inclined to agree with the several wars over time theory, mostly because I also agree with Spiritsplice below that 3.2 million years is an awful lot of time for an oral tradition to be passed down before being committed to writing.

      Perhaps the exploded planet belonged to a much earlier conflict which in itself has been incorporated into the traditions of a much later conflict much more recent to our own epoch, if that makes sense.

      I am reminded of the story of the Trojan War which was orally transmitted for nearly 400 years before being committed to writing by Homer. 400 years where much of the original story had been embellished and incorporated other incidents from the bronze age.

      Compare that 400 years of an oral tradition to a possible 3.2 million years of an oral tradition of a cosmic war then , to my mind anyway, problems begin to appear. I don’t see how that can be done without the existence of writing before, long before, the writing that we know about. I think that the main events of the cosmic war that are evident in the ancient texts belong to a much more recent period.

      That of course is my speculation with all due respect for those who are following this.

      1. Robert Barricklow

        Alot is either “lost” in translation and/or purposely skewed to advantage the few in control of information/power.
        Indeed, legio XIV, I’ne known a character in the property business who “invented” a charge to line his pockets. Those who eventually took over repeated the said charge thinking it “real”. Then corporations adopted it as policy throughout the industry.
        It was a “credit check” charge for apartment renting. He never checked with TRW ect.
        It was in the very early 70s.

        Thus, starts “standards” whose history is not what it seems.
        In fact, those “gansta” low pants riding on those young butts, was originated in Chicago for a quick butt *&%$# !

        1. ” I’ne known a character in the property business who “invented” a charge to line his pockets”

          Now why does that not surprise me?

          1. Robert Barricklow

            In the crosshair$ of a extremely small
            but very powerful “elitist super-me”.

  5. I can’t get past the feeling that we are missing something obvious in looking at this whole question. The dates are entirely too long and too far away to reasonably expect any sort of memory would still exist. I have always thought that the calculations are either based on faulty premises (thereby giving wildly inaccurate results) or purposely beimg skewed to hide something. We can’t collectively remember what happened 20,000 years ago on Earth, but we still remember what happened to another species, on another planet millions of years ago, without any technology to sustain it? It just doesnt add up. We see what a few years of telephone result in, much less thousands of years, but millions? That kind of time frame is not even conceivable in human terms.

    1. I keep giving you the “missing something” spiritsplice,
      but you and others, keep dropping it on the floor below you
      cutting holes and ‘splicing’ through your supports.

      “Millions?”

      Yet THEY are into numbers of Trillions and
      expect to keep some validity……………..

      WITH what they call an unsustainable
      [mere] Billions in population.

    2. The “electric universe” folks speculate that very (and I do mean “VERY”) large flows of electricity (unimaginably large lightning strikes) between celestial objects probably have the ability to skew all sorts of tests we use to determine the age of materials. Large amounts of electricity (energy) can affect atomic structure, even cause atomic transmutation. Using radiation to determine dating simply would not work if the material being “dated” had been subject to large current flows at some time in the past. This is all kindergarten-level logic, and should not be dismissed out of hand, but really should be ruled-out only after painstaking analysis.

      Personally I think the EU folks are onto something. Their explanations seem far more economical than the standard academic views imho.

Comments are closed.