Copyright Charles Ginenthal
One of the problems in Velikovskian research has been the inability to distinguish between catastrophes that occurred close in time to one another. It is also difficult to distinguish the different time frames of the worldwide floods. Immanuel Velikovsky documented mythological and geophysical evidence of a worldwide flood occurring 3,500 years ago.1 He also spoke of earlier catastrophes that produced immense global floods; such floods would have left distinctive evidence.
The evidence I present below is a mlange of data regarding more than one global flood. Apparently, the earlier global floods occurred when major icecaps covered the continents and later floods occurred after these were destroyed. Recent findings verify that such global floods occurred and negate the uniformitarian argument that the flood evidence indicates only local flood episodes. The basic uniformitarian argument is that the great floods were unique events caused by ice-dammed lakes unleashed when the ice dams broke. However, if individual, localized floods occurred repeatedly during the last Ice Age, they would have washed away the whale fossils found on or near the earth surface. However, whale bones and other marine fossils have been found far inland, without having been either destroyed or eroded down to tiny fragments. This strongly supports the global flood hypothesis and contradicts the local flood theory. This evidence fully supports Velikovsky's hypothesis.
If the Earth's axis tilted or the crust suddenly, violently, moved over the mantle, then the oceans would move en masse, as immense tidal waves, away from the equator and toward the poles. On the rotating Earth, due to the Coriolis force, these tide waves would move not only north and south but also counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Since the Pacific Ocean lies between the continents of North America and Asia in the northern hemisphere, and the continental coastlines form an inverted V (/ \) with its apex at the Bering Strait, the tidewater would veer east, over Alaska and Canada, and west, over Asia. In the Atlantic Ocean, the tidewater would flow more easily near the poles, covering a larger area; this would create smaller continental floods. Any icecaps in these regions would be swept away from their landlocked moorings out into the northern Atlantic Ocean and would break up, depositing large amounts of detritus on the sea bed. Since neither eastern Siberia nor Alaska were covered by such a continental ice sheet, minute amounts of glacial detritus should have been deposited in the Pacific Ocean compared to that laid down in the Atlantic Ocean.
The tidal waves flowing over the northern ice sheets would flow south and, in a return flood, where they swept back onto the continental surfaces, would produce stunning evidence of their rampage over the land: signs of violent flood erosion. Wherever mountains formed basins, these regions would fill up, forming immense lakes that would discharge their water, through passes, into rivers which would carve deep channels and leave ghost shorelines at higher elevations.
This has already been confirmed by geological observation. According to Reginald Daly:
Beaches, all over the world, have been raised by forces shoving up from below. At each place the receding waters left an abandoned beach line, the raised beach theory postulates a local uplift. This theory requires uplifts, not only around all the world's oceans, but around all the world's lakes, and also along the banks of all (or almost all) the world's rivers; for there are raised terraces along the banks of all major rivers and abandoned shorelines around the world's lakes....Often the highest terraces of such rivers as the Seine or [the] Elbe, when followed down to the mouth, are seen to blend with old shorelines which border the oceans at levels considerably higher than [those of] the present beaches. This blending of river terraces with ocean shorelines established the fact that the general recession of water levels is a worldwide phenomenon common to both rivers and oceans, which cannot be reasonably attributed to a multiplicity of local uplifts.2This evidence indicates that nearly all the lakes, drainage basins and rivers had greater reservoirs of water which flowed back to the ocean recently, leaving a worldwide system of relic beaches as evidence of this flood. If these flood beaches were ancient, they would have been eroded away. Most of the ocean would have flowed over the icecaps and back to the sea. The icecap would have been swept southward to lower latitudes and would have melted within a few years. The remaining ocean water would drain away, while the melting glaciers would produce immense runoff to replace it. Sea water would only be kept in extremely large collecting regions without outlets, such as the Caspian Sea or Lake Bonneville. Small lakes would then be diluted by the freshwater that melted from the residual icecaps.
Most of the detritus carried by the water would have been left as a ring in, near and around the polar regions as a heavy silt or mulch, containing material such as trees or animals that were swept off the continents. The flowback material would have contained mostly the lightest silts, which would form a second ring-like or annulus-like deposit containing additional animals and trees. Forests would be swept away and buried. The water would then flow into and down river valleys, leaving masses of this secondary silt in its wake. In regions where mountain ranges obstructed the return flow of water, the secondary silt would build up as the water slowed and dropped its load.
All of this rampaging flood violence would have occurred in a very short time. To the human survivors of this deluge, it would have appeared as if the ground had opened up to a subsurface ocean pouring out of the Earth and inundating the land. If the continents were flooded, then the remaining water filling up all basins would have to be discharged. The ground water level would have risen. A stunning example of this flood-ground water relationship is found in Egypt.
Geological studies of the Sphinx have kindled more than debate over [its] attribution and age. The established history of the evolution of civilization has been challenged.A study of the severe body erosion of the Sphinx and the hollow in which it is situated indicates that the damaging agent was water. A slow erosion occurs in limestone when water is absorbed and reacts with salts in the stone. The controversy arises over the source of the vast amount of water responsible.
Two theories are popular. One is that ground water slowly rose into the body of the Sphinx. This theory produces irreconcilable problems: A recent survey carried out by the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) determined that three distinctly separate repair operations were completed on the Sphinx between the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic rule, that is, during a period of roughly 700 to 1,000 years. The study also indicates that the Sphinx was already in its current state of erosion when these early repairs where made. No appreciable erosion has occurred since the original damage, nor is there further damage on the bedrock of the surrounding hollow, an area that never underwent repair.
Knowing this, one must consider that the inundating Nile slowly built up levels of silt over the millennia, and this was accompanied by a gradual rise in the water table. During Khafra's time, the water table was about  feet lower than it is today. For the rising ground water theory to hold, an unbelievable geological scenario would have to have taken place. It would mean that from  feet lower than today's water table, water rose to about two feet into the body of the Sphinx and the surrounding hollow, where it caused erosion for roughly 600 years, and then stopped its damaging effects.
Historians find the second theory...offered more unthinkable. It suggests that the source of water stemmed from the wet phases of the last Ice Age--c. 15,000 to 10,000 BC--when Egypt underwent periods of severe flooding. This hypothesis advocates that the Sphinx necessarily existed before the floods. If it could be proven, well-established theories about prehistory would be radically shaken. The world's most mysterious sculpture would date to a time when historians place humanity in a Neolithic setting, living in open camps and depending largely on hunting and foraging.3 (Emphasis added.)
Richard C. Hoagland discussed the Sphinx and John A. West's analysis of the evidence for its geological age:
On researching a book in the mid-seventies about the philosophies and cosmologies of Ancient Egypt, West came upon a comment from another scholar, R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz: "The Great Sphinx shows evidence of severe water erosion...." To which West internally responded with the obvious question:It is a well-established fact that, during the Ice Age, the amount of rainfall was much greater than at present. Historians believed and accepted that the Egyptian civilization emerged long after the Ice Age ended. Under these circumstances, it is clear that, after the Ice Age ended (supposedly 10,000 years ago), the amount of rainfall over Africa decreased and, therefore, the ground water level would have also decreased. However, the damage to the Sphinx indicates that the water table rose more than 30 feet and remained high for about 600 years. Geologically, an immense amount of water would have had to flood Africa after the Sphinx was constructed. Water tables simply do not rise over 30 feet and remain at a high level under the present gradualistic or uniformitarian conditions. This clearly indicates that a flood of extraordinary magnitude inundated Africa during the time of Egyptian civilization.
"In a desert?!"
West's curiosity, prompted by de Lubicz' casual reference to the "anomalous erosion" of the Sphinx, was based on the following hard facts:
To create "severe water erosion" on the Sphinx, the Sahara Desert must at one time NOT have been a desert. Readily available climatological data for Ancient Egypt make it abundantly clear that the Sahara has been in place from [7 to 10,000 years]...since the end of the last Ice Age. Meaning that both the carving of the Sphinx and its "severe water erosion" had to have taken place sometime before...!
Such an age, if established, would, of course, automatically preclude an Egyptian Pharaoh by the name of Chephren from ordering the carving of the Sphinx only 4,500 years ago--if the Sphinx's current state of weathering could a) be traced unambiguously, geologically to a period of massive rainfall on the Gizeh Plateau (as opposed to wind or sand erosion), and b) that period could be independently dated by geological (as opposed to "Egyptological") techniques, to before Chephren's reign during Egypt's so-called "Old Kingdom."
In 1991, both of these results came together for West's privately-funded Sphinx Project Team--resulting in the Team's highly significant, radical conclusions:
Based on this chain of reasoning...we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front) may have been carried out c. 7,000 to 5,000 BC. This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly...the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even older than 9,000 years ago....
Privately, West's geologists suspect an even greater age for this remarkable Egyptian effigy....
This is required to produce the "advanced state of water weathering" they detect (in part, via seismological techniques)--not merely on the Sphinx--but in the walls, and under the "floor," of the carved "ditch" which separates the Sphinx from the limestone of the Gizeh Plateau proper. This pronounced state of deep erosion is also readily visible in the "Sphinx Temple"--the massive construction...a few hundred yards from the Sphinx, composed of 100-ton limestone blocks. It has long been presumed that these were excavated from the "ditch" at the time of the carving of the Sphinx itself.
All these features...show evidence of such severe water weathering that eroded fissures 12 feet in depth are visible inside the ditch; similar manmade excavations (to the ditch), in similarly hard limestone on other parts of the Plateau (for Old Kingdom tombs, dated by other methods to 5,000 years), show literally no erosion....
The remarkable conclusion?
According to John [A.] West: If the Sphinx predates dynastic Egypt,...we would have to rewrite the history of when advanced civilization began....4 (Author's emphasis.)
A temple was uncovered at Abydos, over 250 miles south of Gizeh, in the 19th century. The main temple complex, built of red granite, is located in a swamp 30 feet beneath the surface. According to David H. Childress, "[its] foundations are cut many feet below the current level of the water table, which has risen some  feet since the temple was built."5
When the Egyptians built this temple in the desert and laid its foundation, it seems obvious that the water table was at least 20 feet lower. The water table would not have risen 20 feet since then unless an enormous amount of water had, somehow, been added to the desert region and had, thus far, not subsided fully. Whale bones discovered in the Sahara Desert offer even more evidence of a flood in Egypt.
Derek Ager argued against Velikovsky's concept of a flood by saying, "The idiocy of some of [Velikovsky's] dogmatic pronouncements is illustrated, for example, in the transport of vast numbers of large vertebrates from the tropics to the Arctic by a great wave that did not, apparently, carry with it a single marine organism."6
The following descriptions about marine organisms found under Egyptian sand dunes and all over the Earth answer Ager's dogmatic pronouncement:
According to James Trifil, some 243 fossilized whale skeletons and loose bones were discovered in a large valley 150 miles southwest of Cairo (100 miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea and more than 200 miles from the Red Sea). These skeletons are of Zeuglodon whales, like those found all over the southeastern United States. The Egyptian whale bones were scattered among the sand dunes; when the wind exposed them, the paleontologists rapidly dug out as much of the fossilized whale as possible because windborne sand erodes exposed bones.7It is generally accepted that the Sahara Desert was created only after the Ice Age ended and the climate became arid. Therefore, whales had to have embedded themselves into the desert sand after the Ice Age ended and sand formed to cover them. The whales must have been left there recently. If Zeuglodons were lying on or near the surface for about 40 million years, as some paleontologists submit, their bones would have eroded away. If they were encased in rock, over time, and the rock became sand, their bones would have become sand.
Thus, two pieces of information point to a recent oceanic flood in Egypt: water damage on the Sphinx, its surrounding niche and temple, and the presence of whale bones both 100 miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea and 200 miles inland from the Red Sea. Whale bones were also found in other regions of North Africa. Allan O. Kelly and Frank Dachille said, "In Tunisia and Algeria, there are a number of salt lakes, some of them below sea level, which show elevated shorelines of Pleistocene age. The University of California's expedition of 1947 [to] 1948 found the bones of whales along with those of present-day mammals in these old lake beds."8
Presently, whales are not found in landlocked inland lakes in Africa. If Zeuglodons lived 50 million years ago and became extinct soon thereafter, they would never be found in strata containing present-day mammals. The implication is that Zeuglodon whales were deposited into these lakes, along with mammals, by an enormous flood. The trapped whales died alongside the mammals that were swept into the salt lakes with them.
How does a marine shell from Central America find its way north to a cave in Pennsylvania with Ice Age fauna? Trade routes at this time are out of the question, but an oceanic tidal wave would carry such a shell northward.
Horworth told of Don Matias de la Mota Padilla, who affirmed that bones found in the Valley of Los Cincillos, Mexico, appeared to be "of fishes or other marine animals, such as whales...."10 Padilla also described
"great beds of oyster shells raised above the sea and extending, at intervals, from the Mississippi [River] to North Carolina....The shore of the Atlantic must have [been filled,] nearly in a line, with these remarkable deposits.... Within this bed, or nearer to the sea, are found fossil bones of elephants which cannot have been fossilized [before] the existence of the soil out of which [the shells were] dug....11
If the oyster shells had turned to stone, then so would the strata in which they lay. The soil has not turned to stone and contains innumerable oyster shell beds, along with mammoth remains, which indicates that the mammoths and the shells were deposited together recently--most likely by a gigantic tidal wave sweeping up from the Gulf of Mexico.
In Cuba, according to Horworth, the remains of a giant sloth, giant extinct rodents, a crocodile and a tortoise, Testudo cubensis, were found together with the relic of a mastodon.12
In 1984, William R. Corliss stated that a bone bed had been discovered south of Tampa, Florida, with paleontologists declaring it one of the United States' richest fossil deposits. This bone bed yielded bones of more than 70 species of animals, birds and aquatic creatures. About 80% of the bones belong to plains animals, such as camels, horses, mammoths, etc. Bears, wolves, large cats and a bird with an estimated 30-foot wingspan [were] also represented. Mixed in with all the land animals are sharks' teeth, turtle shells, and the bones of [freshwater] and salt water fish. The bones are all smashed and jumbled together, as if by some catastrophe. The big question is how bones from such different ecological niches--plains, forests, oceans--came together.13 (Emphasis added.)
The fact that marine and terrestrial animals were buried in the same soils and sediment level where human bones or artifacts have been found suggests that an immense, recent flood occurred. Horworth also described an Arctic island off the coast of North America: "At Port Kennedy, Mr. Walker found [marine] shells of the present period at a height of 557 feet above the sea; a bone of a whale lay at a height of 164 feet."14
In Earth in Upheaval, Velikovsky stated that two whale skeletons had been discovered in Michigan bogs which covered glacial deposits:
Whales are marine animals. How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Whales do not travel by land. Glaciers do not carry whales and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent. Besides, the whale bones were found in post-glacial deposits. Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?He continued:
In order to account for whales in Michigan, it was conjectured that, in the post-glacial epoch, the Great Lakes were part of an arm of the sea. At present, the surface of Lake Michigan is 582 feet above sea level.
Bones of a whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, [at] about 600 feet above sea level....
A species of Tertiary whale, zeuglodon, left its bones in great numbers in Alabama and other Gulf States. The bones of these creatures covered the fields in such abundance and were "so much of a nuisance on the top of the ground that the farmers piled them up to make fences."15
In Georgia, marine deposits occur at altitudes of 160 feet and, in northern Florida, at altitudes of at least 240 feet. Walrus are found in Georgia deposits. Pleistocene [Ice Age] marine features are present along the Gulf coast east of the Mississippi River, in some places at altitudes that may exceed 200 feet. In Texas, mammalian land animals of the Ice Age are found in marine deposits. These areas were not covered by the ice which, advancing from the north, reached only as far as Pennsylvania.Twenty-two years later, in 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, in a bed of diatomaceous earth along with a small seal, other small whales, fish and birds.18 In Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean islands, Vermont, Michigan, the southeastern United States, California and Ontario, fossil marine organisms have been found far from the sea, in strata, or on the surface.
A marine deposit overlies the seaboard of northeastern states and the Arctic coast of Canada; in this deposit walrus, seals and at least five genera of whales are found.16
According to Kelley and Dachille, "Lake Champlain has around it elevated beaches containing numerous marine shells, with the bones of seals and whales."17
The evidence of marine animals that has been found could only be created by immense, recent, oceanic tidal waves. If the floods across North America were caused by ice-domed lakes, they would have washed away all evidence of these whale bones and other marine materials; none of the floods would reach Mexico or the Bahamas.
J. Harlan Bretz suggested and proved that an enormous flood swept down from the north onto the land surface of North America. Stephen J. Gould outlines the nature of Bretz' evidence, the scientific community's response to it and its eventual acceptance under strict uniformitarian boundaries:
In 1923, J. Harlan Bretz proposed a striking and unorthodox explanation for the channeled scablands of eastern Washington. This peculiar topography is developed within a series of elongated basins called coulees....They are traceable up gradient to the southern extent of the last glaciation and down gradient to the Snake or Columbia Rivers....[T]he peculiar features [of the area] suggest...that the channels were once filled with water to a great height; the deep gouging of basalt within the channels [and other evidence] does not look like the ordinary work of rivers....The scientific establishment only accepted Bretz's catastrophic flood scenario on the grounds that the deluge was caused when the glacial ice had melted behind the ice front and had formed an enormous glacial lake. Eventually, this ice dam broke, releasing a wall of water over 2,000 feet deep. There are fundamental problems with such a concept because the lake has to form in defiance of fundamental geophysical constraints. Glacial lakes do form, but are generally not very large; for example, small seasonal lakes form on the Greenland glacier--such as that at Sndre Strmfjord, but they freeze up in the winter.
Bretz concluded, therefore, that the coulees had been carved by a single gigantic flood that had filled them to a depth of more than 1,000 feet, had cut through hundreds of feet of basalt in places and had ended in a matter of days. He envisioned the scope of the events as follows:
"Fully 3,000 square miles of the Columbia plateau were swept by the glacial flood, and the loess and silt cover removed. More than 2,000 square miles of this area were left as bare, eroded, rock-cut channel floors, now the scablands, and nearly 1,000 square miles carry gravel deposits derived from the eroded basalt. It was a debacle which swept the Columbia plateau."
Bretz' hypothesis evoked from the geological establishment a flood of commentary, nearly all of it negative. The common theme running through all of this criticism was the rejection of his ideas in favor of gradualistic explanations, often on a priori grounds.19
Water, surrounded by ice except from above, can only melt to a certain depth. For example, in Siberia, "People at Yakutsk have no wells, they have tried them to 500 and 600 feet deep, but they freeze."20 The same process restricts the depth to which a glacial lake can melt. Most of Greenland is north of the Arctic circle and, every summer, has sunlight and heat produced 24 hours a day for four to five months. Given this long summer period of sunlight and heat, one would expect very deep lakes to form, but Greenland's glacial lakes do not melt to a great depth. In winter, the lake water refreezes. This is essentially what would happen to the icecap north of the Washington scablands.
According to geologists, the ice dam that formed the lake that flooded the Washington scablands did so about 16,000 years ago, while the Ice Age was still in full force. No volcanic regions north of the ice sheet, where the lake supposedly formed, are found there so as to heat the ice. There is evidence of a relic shoreline for the lake, but the oceanic water flowing under the ice could have lifted it to create a short-lived lake. In addition, the ice front facing south would always melt first.
We are expected to believe that the area behind the ice dam, north of the ice front, melted to a depth greater than 2,000 feet and that the warmer ice front to the south did not melt. However, ice and snow melt gradually, from south to north, in springtime; exactly how the icecap would have melted at the end of the Ice Age. Such a large body of water would be a heat source to tunnel its way through or under the ice. Some of these giant lakes supposedly formed north of the midwestern states, where there are no mountains acting as barriers to the lake water. This is true with regard to the drumlins, elongated mounds of glacial material sorted by water action. Smaller ice dams, which generate floods, do exist.21 Of more importance, however, no geologists have explained the presence of whales in postglacial material, which contradicts the theory of freshwater, glacial dam flood formation.
Any long-lived, large, deep body of water in a glacier would melt a channel either under or through the ice and would flow away as a river. Such rivers are found in the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica,22 and no such immense, deep glacial lakes have ever been seen in either region.
Scientists have invented an ad hoc process, for the creation of a lake, which contradicts climatic and geophysical thermal conditions. However, Warren C. Hunt exposed another problem related to such an ice dam. He claimed that it would be impossible for an ice dam to hold back a lake of water 2,100 feet deep.23
According to Hunt, since modern engineering employs bedrock grouting for securing the footings of 500-foot...dams, it must strike any reader as...frivolous to suggest that chance emplacement of glacial ice might have dammed Clark Fork across a 7-mile...span lacking in intermediate abutments and then retained water at four times the pressure of modern, engineered, concrete dams!24
In fact, Hunt proved the dam was emplaced elsewhere and "would have had an unsupported length of approximately 50 [miles]...."25
He said that "[i]ce has no effective tinsel strength"26 and would break under the stresses created by the pressure on an ice wall over seven miles in length. Consider picking up a block of ice measuring 100 feet long x 20 feet thick x 40 feet wide at its ends. The weight of the ice block will cause it to snap and break. The longer the length of the dam, the easier it is to break.
Mark L. Lord and Alan E. Kehew were able to show that, in plain regions where there are no mountains to impound water, [g]lacial-lake outburst floods were common in the northern Great Plains during the Pleistocene Epoch. Sedimentologic and paleohydraulic interpretations...support geomorphic evidence of large magnitude, highly competent discharges from glacial lake outbursts. Large-scale bars consisting of matrix-supported, poorly sorted, pebbly cobble gravel were deposited by hyperconcentrated flows, probably between 20% and 40% sediment by weight.27
According to their paleohydraulic calculations, between 60,000 and 900,000 cubic yards of water were discharged per second. Of course, they do not discuss having found whales in nearby regions. To admit this would destroy the ice dam-lake bursting concept.
John Shaw, of the Department of Geography at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, claimed that drumlin fields, regions covered by many long hills with their long slopes facing the ice sheet and their short slopes facing away from the ice sheets, were created by immense subglacial floods, and that entire sections of the ice sheet were literally lifted and moved southward, carving innumerable drumlin fields across North America.
Isaac and Janet Asimov described the research as follows:
[I]n 1975, Casare Emiliani, of the University of Miami, studies the fossil remnants of microscopic organisms under the sediments of the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. From his studies, he concluded that...[11,000] years ago,...the Gulf of Mexico contained water that was much less salty than it is today. He suggests that the ice sheets had undergone sudden melting and that a vast flood of water had entered the Gulf of Mexico and raised the sea level markedly.Scott Fields has stated that
The suggestion was largely ignored because it was difficult to imagine the ice melting that fast, but, in 1989, John Shaw...made a suggestion as to...how such floods might come about.
The region where once the ice sheets were found have a scattering of low hills called "drumlins." These are usually supposed to have been formed by [the] grinding action of glaciers as they came and went. Shaw, however, feels [that] they may, more easily, have been formed by a rush of water.
He suggests that the ice sheets did, indeed, melt very slowly but that the water did not necessarily run off, soak into the ground, pour into rivers and reach the sea as rapidly as it formed.
Instead, water might have slowly settled down to the bottom of the ice sheet, soaked into the ground until it reached the bedrock and slowly accumulated there. There would, thus, form what was, essentially, a lake of water under the ice sheet, and this would be prevented, by ice dams, from spreading outward.
Eventually, though, as the glaciers continued very slowly to melt, sections of the ice dam would waken and...break. The lake of ice water that had been pent up would then pour out seaward in a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.
Shaw has calculated that something like [20,000] cubic miles of water may have poured out of the ice all at once to form the drumlin fields of northern Saskatchewan....
The Amazon River, the largest on Earth, takes ten years to discharge [20,000] cubic miles of water into the Atlantic Ocean, but the ice lake may have discharged it in a matter of a few days only.
Human beings retreating inland before the inflowing water may have reminisced and exaggerated afterward, giving rise to tales of drowned continents and universal flood.28
a series of catastrophic floods thousands of years ago may have produced the vast drumlin fields of southeastern Canada and the steplike patterns found in dead coral reefs off the coast of the Grand Cayman Islands....The implication may also be drawn that there were at least three major floods created by other catastrophes in the recent past. However, the sudden death of corals happened swiftly and, therefore, catastrophically. The drumlin fields described are found all across North America and Europe, not just in Saskatchewan, and this drumlin topography would also require immense flooding.
Although drumlins are usually thought to be chiseled by glacial ice, these drumlins must have been formed by floods, Shaw says. The reason: other ice-related forms, such as moraines, are missing in the area....
As the oceans swelled, colonies of the coral Acropora palmata started to die, says geologist Paul Blanchon, also at the University of Alberta. Because this coral can grow only when it receives plenty of light, it "drowns" in water deeper than 33 feet....The reefs Blanchon studies drowned so quickly that they formed three distinct steps, one for each flooding peak.
If sea levels had risen slowly, Blanchon says, the reefs would have crept toward shallower water as corals built homes at depths they like best. Instead, entire colonies of A. palmata suddenly perished and were replaced entirely by other species. Using previously established radioisotopic dates, Blanchon found that the events causing corals to drown coincide with the floods that produced Shaw's drumlins.
Blanchon then estimated how quickly the sea would have to rise to overtake the coral's growth rate. "We worked out that it would have to be at least a five-meter...rise to drown them," he says. But Shaw [believed] the extra rise was caused by huge pieces of ice that slid into the sea from eastern Canada and then melted.29
Four years ago, C. Warren Hunt commented on Shaw's work:
Shaw observed, as have others including me, that huge fields of these [drumlin] features occur. The drumlins are found side by side in fields [50 kilometers] in width and length, with [50-meter] heights and 1-to-2 [kilometer] lengths, and parallel orientation so perfect that only a massive water flow could have produced them....He admitted that there is no evidence of cometary debris in the regions where such evidence should be found. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that drumlins were formed by water action. Even during floods, water tends to lay down sediment as stratified deposits. Neither glacial action nor the pushing of surface materials into long narrow hills will separate the materials deposited into separate strata, according to their natural grain size and mass.
Shaw's work was in northern Saskatchewan and southern Ontario. Drumlin fields of this sort occur elsewhere. My observations in northern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia led me to consider the drumlins I observed on air photographs as fluvial features because of the regularity in orientation, spacing and length--the same characteristics attributed by Shaw to flood deposition...
Curiously, Shaw does not contemplate (in print, at any rate) where the water could have originated, apparently assuming it to be sub-glacial meltwater. But how could such melting take place without a heat source such as volcanic heat, which precipitates Icelandic jokulhaups [(glacial floods in Iceland produced by volcanic melting of subglacial ice)]? What climate regimen would allow such melting in the first place? What containment mechanism would allow accumulation of a great under-ice lake, 84,000 km3 [(cubic kilometers)] of water 18 times the volume of the Bonneville flood release beneath [3,000 meters] of ice? And would not water beneath the maximum ice thickness tend to escape the lesser confining pressures under peripheral areas of the ice sheet? Is there any possible way such a huge under-ice chamber of water could accumulate?
Ice has no effective tensile strength. Thus, any unconstrained portion of an ice sheet above a moving torrent would move with the water, breaking up and flowing as icebergs with it. Any rock load that might be encased in the ice would go with the flood. Catastrophic emergence of flood waters from under an ice sheet would rapidly destroy the ice sheet....
Earth heat cannot have melted continental ice to produce floodwater in the volumes required for drumlin formation. A cometary heat source could have served the purpose.30 (Emphasis added.)
This is crucial! Only water action will segregate materials into distinctly separate, stratified deposits which are oriented in the direction of the water's flow. A typical drumlin, in cross-section, will have an inner core of sand. There will be gravel above the sand, at the longer slope, over which glacial till will be found. Often, a sandy deposit will cover the entire front of the drumlin. See Figure 1, below:
Figure 1. WATER ACTION DRUMLIN.
If the drumlin were deformed by glacial action, it would look like Figure 2, below:
Figure 2. GLACIAL ACTION DRUMLIN.
[for pictures and other excellent articles, purchase a copy of Sagan and Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal, New Falcon Press, due out early Spring of 95]
The drumlins show distinctly stratified deposits. Because of this, Shaw said, "It is simply not possible for drumlins to form by pervasive subglacial deformation and, at the same time, contain large thicknesses of undeformed, but highly deformable, fine-grained, laminated sediment near the landform surface."31
However, if the flood was an oceanic tidal wave flowing back south after its northward flow, it would leave whale remains and other evidence of its marine nature. This evidence is found in the topographical glacial feature known as an esker, a very long ridge that runs down, up and over hills; is made up of sand, clay and rocky debris; and is found in both North America and Europe. Eskers may exceed 100 miles in length, giving the impression of a railroad embankment; some are 60 yards high and 40 yards wide. It has generally been assumed that eskers were formed from glacial rivers that deposited sand and gravel under the ice. However, rivers do not run up hills. Hills under the ice sheet would halt the natural river flow; therefore, rivers would have to either erode or flow around the hills. If eskers were created from cracks in the ice sheet, into which water and detritus poured, then evidence of this should be found. This is supported by the fact that marine shells have been found in North American and European eskers: In North America, "fossils [were] discovered in an esker-like glacial ridge of sand and gravel. It is suggested that the deposit was formed as a crevasse filling....[T]he fossils are mostly intact, many with both valves together, in place...."32 In Scandinavia, eskers containing gravel, sand (ripple marks), clay and "Baltic [Sea] shells" were found.33
Horworth explained that the European eskers found across glaciated areas of Europe and Russia contained, in their uppermost layers, "stiff blue clay or...finely sifted and laminated brickearths containing, in places, [many] diatoms and marine shells, but never, so far as [he knew], freshwater debris or land mollusks."34
Obviously, marine shells should not be found either in North American or European freshwater glacial deposits. Like the whale fossils found on the surface of these regions, the marine nature of oceanic life forms in eskers has been ignored in order to avoid dealing with the fact that these deposits were laid down by an oceanic flood over both land and ice.
Lake Bonneville, a reservoir of water estimated to cover 19,000 square miles through Utah, Nevada and Idaho, left great salt deposits covering 100 square miles and discharged itself suddenly, after filling up, to produce a tremendous flood. The general public believes that the lake filled gradually from rainfall during the Ice Age, then suddenly discharged its water when its north-facing earthen dam burst. The dam presumably collapsed during the same general period as did the ice dam which formed the Washington Scablands. According to Robert D. Jarrett and Harold E. Malde of the United States Geological Survey (U. S. G. S.), the discharged water is now reckoned to have amounted to "2.2 times the discharge previously reported and is the second largest flood known to have occurred in the world....Other recent studies of the history of Lake Bonneville show that the volume of water released was 4,700 km3.35
However, Hunt showed that the flood did not discharge itself northward from the lake but flowed from the north into the lake:
The fundamental problem with the popularly held, simplistic idea of outflow drainage [from Lake Bonneville] cutting down Red Rock Pass [at the northern end of the lake] shows clearly in the geomorphology. The landforms should show evidence supportive of the outflow, features apparent to a layperson. It does not take a geologist to recognize that erosional downcutting of a spillway from one level to a lower one [found where rushing torrents of water cut deep channels] must have created a V-shaped gully at the pass, a gorge which today should be highly visible.If the flood had come from the lake, the gorge formed would have cut a V-shaped valley. Since the valley is broad and not V-shaped, this strongly suggests that the flood water flowed from the north into Lake Bonneville, through Red Rock Pass. Furthermore, a flood out from the lake would have removed most of the material in the valley running through Red Rock Pass. However, fine rock sediments, the kind laid down in water not highly turbid from currents, were found. If the water flowed from the north into Lake Bonneville at Red Rock Pass, it would slow down at this point and rise, dropping its load of fine material in the Pass--precisely what is found.
What we find on Red Rock Pass is different. The Pass is not V-shaped as it should be, but wide and flat-floored. Its 16-[kilometer]...length is flanked by low depositional terraces made up of fine clastic materials characteristic of quiescent deposition.36 (Author's emphasis.)
Also relevant is the erosion left by the water-laden material on the rock formations. Hunt stated that
[another] feature...one would look for in any vigorous fluvial process [would be the] impact-polishing and scouring of channel walls. Entrained sand and gravel [in flood waters] act as cutting agents to scour and polish such obstacles. The resulting impacted and polished rock surfaces should be visible today.What [he] found in a gravel excavation just east of the two-lane highway...on the Pass [was] most revealing--a polished vertical rock surface facing north. Turbulent water has flowed south, past this obstacle, across the Pass and into Lake Bonneville. No comparable south-facing rockface demonstrates northward flow.37 (Author's emphasis.)
Had the flood originated at the lake, flowing northward, it could only polish the south-facing side of the vertical rock in its path within the Pass. Since the north-facing rock surface was the only one polished, this proves conclusively that the flood flowed southward, into the lake.
Also, according to Hunt, the chlorine content in the salt beds indicates that the water was of oceanic origin:
Concerning salinity, Broecker, Walton and Eardley et al. attempt to show that the chlorine content could have arrived by wind from the ocean. Their rationale is most erudite and intriguing, but the explanation is superfluous. Fete gives the sodium-to-chlorine ratio as .92 and points out its similarity to that of the Pacific Ocean, which he gives as .86. The .92 ratio may be above the Pacific figure because of post-Bonneville contributions of local salts. That is what would be expected, in any case, as much higher ratios characterize indigenous waters of the cordillera region. Interior drainage and evaporation give rise to gypsiferous and carbonate deposits rather than to halite [salt]."Velikovsky described the muck beds across Alaska and Canada, which are hundreds of feet deep along river valleys.39 The river valleys contain hundreds of feet of frozen muck, comprised of the shattered bones of Ice Age fauna and man, splintered forests and artifacts--all of which is highly indicative of an immense flood. As this water reentered the ocean at the Bering Strait, it would have carved immense submarine canyons in that region.
[Broecker, Walton and I] consider an oceanic source essential to explain the presence of the quantity of chlorine found in the surface environment of the Bonneville basin.38
One would expect an immense backflow off the land, based on having a tidal flood flow north in the Pacific basin and into the inverted V created by the meeting of Asia and Alaska at the Bering Strait. This, of course, is well supported by the muck-filled river valleys. However, some of the world's largest submarine canyons are also found on the Bering Sea's continental margin. The detritus carried by flood water would cut deep canyons.
According to Paul R. Carlson and Herman A. Karl of the U. S. G. S.:
Seven large submarine canyons cut the Beringian [Bering Sea] continental margin. Three of these are among the world's largest submarine canyons. Bering is 400 [kilometers] long. Navarinsky and Zhemchug are each 100 [kilometers] wide at the shelf break and volumes of sediment removed from these three canyons range from 4,300 to 5,800 km3, an order of magnitude [ten times] larger than any submarine canyons incised in the margin of the lower 48 states.40The problem with the uniformitarian turbidity current concept is that the major melting of the icecap should have been at the southern end of the continental glacier. Over millions of years, water flowing into the ocean from this outflow would have created many mud and water flows to cut submarine canyons. Since the greatest glacial outflows supposedly came from the continental United States and not from Alaska or Eastern Siberia, which were not glaciated, the longest, widest and largest canyons should have formed south of the ice sheets and not at the north, where there was little ice melt. The sediment transported from the continental shelf and ocean slopes, far into the Aleutian basin, forms a layer about a mile deep on the sea bed.41
Gigantic ripple marks offer more topographic evidence for an immense flood all across North America, Europe and elsewhere. Uniformitarians have argued that such marks are terminal moraines left by the ice sheet's repeated regressions and advances. But this concept does not stand up to scrutiny. An ice sheet would remove the moraine over which it passed. However, the ice sheet's advances would have to have been progressively shorter, over millions of years, in order for the ice sheet to leave regularly large systems of ripples or ridges. The major problem with the terminal moraine concept is that the interior plain of western Canada was not glaciated and, therefore, could never produce series of ripples. According to J. W. Dawson, who researched this region:
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the region is that immense series of ridges of drift piled against an escarpment of Laramie and Cretaceous rocks, at an elevation of about [2,500 feet above sea level], and known as the "Missouri coteau." It is, in some places,  miles broad and  feet in height above the plain at its foot, and extends north and south for a great distance, being, in fact, the northern extension of those great ridges of drift which have been traced south of the Great Lakes,...through Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and which figure on the geological maps as the edge of the continental glacier--an explanation obviously inapplicable to those western [Canadian] regions where they attain their greatest development.42This, of course, supports the view of an oceanic tide flowing north over the ice sheet. In Iowa, these ripple marks rise from 10 to 15 feet, extend as far as a mile, separated rather evenly, and cover close to 10,000 square miles.43 A final proof that ripple marks are flood evidence is that they are found in the Washington Scablands, definitively known as a flooded region. According to Stephen Jay Gould, the first good aerial photographs of the Scablands revealed that several coulee floor areas were "covered with giant stream-bed ripples, up to 22 feet high and 425 feet long. [Bretz, who had explored and explained the flood cause of the Scablands,]...had been working on the wrong scale. He had been walking over the ripples for decades but had been too close to see them."44
V. R. Baker had argued, in 1973, that giant ripples 425 feet in chord length and 15 to 22 feet high, found near Lake Missoula and on the gravel beds of the scablands, substantiated that a powerful flood produced the scabland topography.45
According to most geologists, the Washington Scabland flood occurred 13 to 18,000 years ago. What is required to create these ripple markings is, literally, impossible. The ice sheet had to advance and recede continuously, after the flood, so as to emplace layers of terminal moraine in the scabland valleys without destroying the topography over which it moved. To suggest that, over 5,000 years, an ice sheet would advance and retreat repeatedly to create ridges, but would not obliterate the scablands' flood topography so as to push the moraine before it, is a geophysical absurdity! This evidence clearly indicates that ripple marks found all over North America, Europe and elsewhere were produced by an immense, oceanic tidal wave flowing off a continental glacier and covering areas which formed ripple fields at their interfaces.
Geologists have employed a double standard for giant ripple marks: In the scablands, ripple marks are evidence of heavy flooding; in many other regions, ripple marks are evidence of glacial flow.
Drumlins, discussed previously, have an interrelationship with ripples; drumlins either point away from a glacier or in the direction of glacial flow. Douglas E. Cox showed that ripple marks--signs of flooding--were found north of the drumlin fields in Ontario's Bruce Peninsula.46 This evidence supports the concept that drumlins were created by a subglacial flood which forced the icecap to move en masse over the terrain, producing drumlin fields. If drumlins were produced by glacial action, the terrain would gradually be flattened as the glacier advanced and would not exhibit drumlins composed of glacial moraines.
What glaciologists are saying is contradictory: First they claim that ripples running horizontally to glacial motion are produced as the glacier front bulldozes the land before it. Then, regarding drumlin fields, they claim that the glacier does not flatten the terrain it encounters but pushes detritus under the ice front, forming long rows of hills pointing in the direction of the drumlins and that these ripple marks are signs of flooding.
Gradual glacial movement, on its own, cannot, concurrently, create terrain features both perpendicular to and parallel to the direction of glacial flow; water action is also needed.
While Alaska, northwestern Canada and eastern Siberia were not under glacial cover, the same is not true of eastern North America. Here, the continental icecap covered the entire region as far south as New York City. If an oceanic tidal wave had fallen upon this ice field, it would have broken the icecap into innumerable pieces, dislodging it from its continental moorings. Icebergs would have surged into the northern Atlantic Ocean and melted as they drifted southward, dropping whatever detrital material they had gouged from the continents. Under such conditions, continental debris would sink to the ocean floor, creating distinct layers of heavy rock on the sea bed covering much of the North Atlantic. Named the Heinrich layers, they are present in the North Atlantic sea bed.
So as to explain these detritus layers, one must propose that the ice sheet suddenly surged off the continent and into the Atlantic Ocean. Uniformitarians assume that the bottom of the ice sheet contained soft, muddy material which acted as a lubricant permitting the ice sheet to slide off the continent. The problem with this scenario is that the wet, soft sediment would rise and flow around the glacier, never allowing for the creation of glacial topography. If the ice sheet was lifted and moved by subglacial water, one must explain how a sea of water formed below the ice--deep inside the continent.
The major problem, however, was explained by Mark Maslin, who showed that "sediment deposited by icebergs in the Labrador Sea...[contained] rocks of the type found in the middle of the North American continent, as well as at its edge."47
Douglas MacAyeal, a researcher, suggested that the buildup and surges between Heinrich events take 7,000 years.48 However, this is difficult to accept because the ice sheet is millions of years old and should have generated hundreds of Heinrich layers, instead of the few discovered.
Furthermore, in Iceland and South America, it has been found that, during the last Heinrich event, the glaciers broke up and moved. This suggests that the Earth shook violently, causing North American, South American and Icelandic glaciers to break up and slide away at the same time.49 However, if all these glaciers slipped from their land moorings and broke up at the same time, is it reasonable to suggest that the Greenland glacier remained intact?
The argument raised against the global flood concept is that these layers were laid down during the Ice Age, 10,000 or more years ago, and cannot support Velikovsky's theory. This is based on data from deep sea cores which use foraminifera,50 to date the sediments. Different species of foraminifera represent different evolutionary stages. By finding different species at different sediment levels, one can conclude that much time has passed for the new form to evolve. However, an investigation of this evidence revealed that the same foraminifera fossils, when found in different layers of sea sediment, were given different names or placed into different families; by changing their names, they became different species. However, if they were found in the same sedimentary level of oceanic ooze, they were represented as belonging to the same species. To get around this circular reasoning, evolutionists suggest that this is really "iterative evolution"--some foraminifera cyclically become extinct and then re-evolve.51 This dating method interprets the findings to always fit the model, via circular reasoning. More than a dating method, it is a confirmation method; like in other dating schemes, what is expected is found.
In agreement with previously noted evidence from the North American continent, the above data indicates that much of the icecap broke up suddenly, moving en masse into the ocean, and, thus, supports a global, tidal, oceanic inundation of the land.
This flood system is assumed to be quite recent, though its age is unknown. The erosion pattern of the eastern English Channel valleys is similar to that of the channelled scablands of Washington and Idaho. Smith does not invoke an ice dam to impound water since there were no mountains in the North Sea to act as water barriers. He assumes that a land barrier--formed by anticlines, downward-sloping, parallel folds in stratified rock--crossed the Dover Strait and then water built up behind it. This is highly unlikely, because anticlines are made up of arch-shaped walls of rock. Such rock would breach gradually and the water would be released gradually in a stream. Over time, the stream would cut a gorge into the anticlines so that the dammed water would not build up higher than the bottom of the gorge. Furthermore, the impounded water would have access to the North Sea. It is more probable that the water would flow back to the sea at this point.
Supporting this is the clear evidence of a "broad erosional feature extending northward from the Lobourg paleovalley [in the English Channel at Dover] to a more elevated part of the North Sea floor, south of the Dogger Bank [about 185 miles long and from 12 to 32 miles wide]."52
Because the area behind the Hurd Deep is also long and deeper than the surrounding sea bed, Smith interpreted this feature as one "created by erosion as waters swept out of the North Sea, scouring the sea floor toward the gap in the [anticlinal] barrier."53 What impounded sufficient water behind this dam so that it would rush into the breach to cut and scour the sea floor for 185 miles? If there was a lake behind the barrier, lake water would empty from the surface downward and not scour the sea floor. To scour the sea floor requires that the water move en masse, which is not in accord with the gradual cutting down of a barrier.
Smith claimed that the "creation of the banks of the [English] Channel...was clearly post the events described here and reflects a pattern which could only be created after the opening of the [Strait of Dover]. The sediment distribution pattern is, likewise, a reflection of very recent events."54 (Emphasis added.)
When whales become beached and die, either whole carcasses or bones decompose and are washed away. Fossilized whale remains, found inland at Antwerp, Belgium, directly opposite the 185-mile-long scoured sea bed in the North Sea, support the oceanic wave hypothesis. The number of whales at Antwerp was so great that, in discussing their numbers, a paleontologist drew the conclusion that "recent whales, whose true habitat is in oceans, are almost invariably doomed if they strayed into the North Sea."55 This discovery affirms that an immense flood hit the English Channel and concurs with that of the midwestern United States, where large numbers of whale remains were left in the wake of floods.
Velikovsky described the Cromer forest beds in Norfolk, England:
In Cromer, Norfolk, close to the North Sea coast, and in other places on the British Isles, "forest beds" have been found. The name derives from the presence of a great number of stumps of trees, once supposed to have rooted and grown where they are not found. Many of the stumps are in upright positions and their roots are often interlocked. Today, these forests are recognized as having drifted: The roots do not end in small fibers, but are broken off, in most cases one to three feet from the trunk.Velikovsky proposed the existence of an immense tidal flood. This is confirmed by the whale remains found in this mass of animal debris. H. N. Hutchinson said, "Remains of the gigantic sperm whale...are found in the forest-bed of Cromer...[and] remains of the curious narwhal, with its long, spear-like tusk, are found in the Norfolk forest-bed."57
Bones of  species of mammals, besides birds, frogs and snakes, were found in the forest-bed of Norfolk. Among the mammals were the saber-toothed tiger, huge bear, mammoth, straight-tusked elephant, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, bison and modern horse....Two exclusively northern species--glutton and must-ox--were found among animals from temperate and tropical latitudes....
Immediately above the forest-bed, there is a freshwater deposit with arctic plants--arctic willow and dwarf birch--and land shells....
Astarte borealis and other mollusk shells are found "in the position of life with both valves united." These species "are arctic, but, as the bed seems in other places to contain Ostrea edulis, [a mollusk] which requires a temperate sea, the evidence is conflicting as to the climate."
What could have brought together, or in quick succession, all these animals and plants from the tundra of the Arctic Circle and from jungles of the tropics, from lush oak forest and from desert, from lands of many latitudes and altitudes, from freshwater lakes and rivers, and from salt seas of the north and south?56
Charles Worth said that fish "were depicted by Paleolithic man...and their remains are found in cave and other deposits, and interglacial accumulation, e.g., the Cromer forest-bed."58
According to James Geikie, "[b]elow a deposit of till at Woodhill Quarry, near kilmaurs in Ayrshire (Scotland), the remains of mammoths and reindeer and certain marine shells have, several times, been detected....[I]n the valley of the Endrick, about four miles from Loch Comma...an antler was found, associated with marine shells...."59
According to Asa Elfstrm, a catastrophic flood flowed down from northern Sweden and washed away the surface soil, leaving a vast delta of bare rocks across the region.60 Like other scientists, he claimed that an ice dam burst and left this bare cobble field behind. Nonetheless, south of Lapland, in the provinces of Halland and Gotland, Sweden, whale remains were found:
At a recent meeting of the Scientific Society of Upsala, [Sweden,] Dr. C. Aurivillius read a paper on the skeleton of the so-called Swedenborg whale...discovered last November in the province of Halland, in a layer of marl [a loose, unconsolidated surface mixture of clay and calcium carbonate derived from and including shell fragments] 50 feet above the sea. Remains of this species of whale have only been found once before,...early [in the] last century, when some parts of one were discovered in the province of Western Gotland, 330 feet above the sea, and 70 miles inland. It was at first believed that they were the bones of some giant, but it is said that Swedenborg discovered their true nature.61 (Emphasis added.)Horworth also stated that an entire whale species was reported at Stockholm, Sweden: "[Testaceans were] found  feet above the sea level, being identical with those found in the adjacent sea...."62
A 1925 New York Times article reported:
The skeleton of a prehistoric whale has been discovered  miles inland from the North Sea coast, imbedded [six] feet down in a bog of North Schleswig.A bog, of course, like the deluge lakes of Africa, would be the last place in which an aquatic life form would survive before the bog became a mire of mud; therefore, if a tidal wave deposited whales on continents, they would have to be found in surface lakes, ponds and bogs, for example. However, whales would, more commonly, be found stranded on land.
Experts of the Institute of Geological Research, at Copenhagen, have taken charge of the excavations of the skeleton, hoping to find an answer to the puzzle of how the giant sea mammal got so far from the sea. They advance the theory that some great tidal wave may have swept the whale inshore several thousand years ago, since the skeleton is pronounced to be of a species long since extinct.63
In Vestspitzbergen, Norway, a whale was discovered in the permafrost, a physical impossibility based on geological uniformitarianism. Permafrost is as hard as rock and will not allow a floating whale to enter it. D. L. Dineley and P. A. Garrett reported the following:
The ice core of the moraine rises to about 20 feet above the high-water mark and the dirt cover is probably about [three] feet thick. Near the top of the ice core, and within the adjacent moraine, the bones and (now decomposing) flesh and [the] skin of a whale were found. Melting of the ice and the removal of moraine seem to be uncovering more of the carcass each year and, from what could be seen, much of the body behind the shoulder region...remain[s]. Several of the posterior vertebrae are exposed on the upper surface of the moraine, so that their dorsal surfaces have suffered some damage. The head and shoulders have been carried away during...erosion of the moraine, which consists...largely of water-worn pebbles and small boulders, and muck containing `raised beach' fossils....The length of the existing part of the animal is about 30 feet, so that its length when complete must have been about 60 feet.According to Horworth, [?] Lamont discovered whale bones and driftwood "several miles inland [from the Spitsbergen Islands, north of Norway] and, high above [the] high-water mark, skeletons of whales  to  feet above the sea level."65
The question of how and when the animal became entombed is a difficult one.64
Whale remains similar to those in the permafrost of Vestspitzbergen, Norway, were also found in Siberia. Horworth reported that N. A. E. Nordenskjold had described whales found in Siberia:
Special attention was drawn to a skeleton belonging to the Balaena mysticetus [because it was] still partially covered with skin, and [because it had] deep red, almost fresh, flesh adhering to those parts of it. [The whale] was frozen in the ground. This skeleton lay at a place where the dune sand had recently been washed away.66Horworth also reported the discovery of marine fauna all across Siberia:
Similar evidence is forthcoming from the deposits where the Mammoths' remains occur further inland, and where we find marine shells which [give] evidence [of] the former presence of the ocean. This was known to Pallas, and has been confirmed amply by Middendorf and others. Thus, [Pallas] describes the occurrence near Ust Tatarskoi on the Irtish of numerous shells, mostly fossilized, but others preserving their horny pellicles, and, in some cases, retaining traces of the mollusk itself. In the same layers were found the bones of elephants and many other animals. [He adds,] "This undoubtedly...has come from a great inundation...." Pallas, himself, found several remains of both elephants and buffaloes (bison and musk sheep?) in situ, and also heads of great fishes....According to Gideon A. Mantel, Zeuglodon whale remains had been found near Bordeau and in Malta.68 H. N. Hutchinson reported finding a few Squalodon whale teeth in Italian cave deposits.69 He also said that cetaceans had been found frequently "in the marine European deposits of Miocene age--especially in the Vienna Basin, many parts of France and the crag formations of Antwerp and Suffolk."70
Nordenskjold gives figures and the following list (omitted) of sub-fossil marine shells from the Yenissei tundra, where Mammoths' remains abound....Murchison describes Pleistocene marine shells as occurring a long way south of the White Sea. Similar marine shells are found mixed with Mammoths' remains in the valley of the lower Somme and in the deposits of the English Channel.67 (Emphasis added.)
Boucher de Perthes, who excavated in Picardy, France, found that above the coarse sand characteristic of the Ice Age's diluvian period--sand containing the bones of mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, the ancient bison, the ancient wild horse, elks, cave lions and other animals--lay the topmost layer, dated as modern. "It consisted of a fine sand in which innumerable shellfish had been buried."71 (Emphasis added.)
A cave in France's Vzre Valley, located about 65 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and 250 miles from the Mediterranean Sea, revealed chipped flint, reindeer antlers, human skeletons and "shells of marine snails, pierced with holes."72 Apparently, the flood survivors found these marine snails on the surface and pierced them to make necklaces. This indicates that the snails were brought inland by a flood.
What then of Siberian topography? Does it exhibit the same characteristics as the Washington scablands? Victor R. Baker, Geraldo Benito and Alexey N. Rudoy described evidence of catastrophic superflooding in the Altay Mountains of southcentral Siberia. They claimed that this topography verified that this was the site for the Earth's greatest flood. Originally, it was thought that the landforms were formed by glaciation, but further examination showed flood-scoured channelways, gigantic bars or ripples and gravel wave trains. The investigators estimated that the impounded water flow over the surface was 7 kilometers wide. So as to achieve this amount of flooding, the water level behind the ice dam had to be more than 1,900 meters (over 6,270 feet) deep. This, I submit, is hardly credible. The force and pressure of this much water would float an icecap dam long before it achieved a depth of 6,000 feet; and, if the 7-kilometer-wide dam of the scablands could not hold back a 2,000-foot-deep lake, a similar dam would not hold back a 6,000-foot-deep lake (three times the depth and pressure). The peak flow was estimated at 18 million cubic meters of water per second!73
Thus, there is evidence of oceanic flooding across the entire northern region of the Earth, provided by the presence of whale remains and other marine organisms found in inland regions. If the floods originally flowed north from their equatorial ocean basins and into the Arctic Ocean, then flowed back over the land, they would produce the above-mentioned topography and would generate the burial of Pleistocene fauna hetacombs. However, if such ocean floods flowed into the Arctic, they would carry along an immense amount of detritus. The Arctic Ocean would still retain this load of material and, compared to the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, would contain greater depths of sediment. This has been proven: "The Arctic [Ocean] contains four depressions of oceanic depth which, unlike other oceans, hold large volumes of sediment."74 (Emphasis added.)
Why should only the Arctic Ocean basin be covered by great amounts of sediment if these were produced, by uniformitarian processes, in exactly the same way as in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans? The Arctic Ocean is no older than the other oceans. Only a global, oceanic tidal wave, flowing northward, would carry along additional sediment to be added to that of the Arctic Ocean.
Due to recent findings from Greenland ice cores, scientists have concluded that the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean has fluctuated greatly, even wildly, throughout the Ice Ages and, perhaps, throughout the last interglacial period. The fluctuations occurred over very short periods of time.
Two theories explain the fluctuations: The first theory claims that the ocean currents changed direction over different timespans. The second theory suggests that every temperature fluctuation may have been caused by glacial floods pouring from the icecap. If an almost endless succession of floods cooled the oceans, then the detritus and sediment which poured into the Arctic basin would have left a high amount of sediment in the Atlantic. However, compared to the Arctic Ocean, the North Atlantic seabed contains less sediment.
The evidence speaks eloquently for a massive inflow of water carrying sediment into the Arctic Ocean and shows that this sediment could only have been produced by an oceanic tidal wave. This evidence also contradicts the impact concept as the cause of such a flood. If a comet or an asteroid fell into the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian oceans, it would remove much of the impacted ocean sediment load, causing the sediment to overflow into the surrounding ocean basins. An impact in the Atlantic Ocean would have created a tidal wave that would send sediment into the Arctic Ocean, as well as into the southern Pacific and Indian oceans. This has not been observed. An impact in the Pacific or Indian oceans would create a tidal wave that would dump sediment into the Arctic through the Bering Strait and additional sediment into the southern Atlantic. The only type of impact that would affect all the oceans would either affect the rotation of the Earth or tilt the Earth's geographic axis so as to cause the waters in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans to rush away from the equator and toward the poles. I suggest that the evidence of little sediment in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, compared with that found in the Arctic Ocean, points unambiguously to the concept Velikovsky outlined in Worlds in Collision--not to a single impact event.
Muck found filled to great depth with Pleistocene animals and smashed forests, forming an annulus at the northernmost reaches of the northern continents around the Arctic Ocean, corroborates this. Where does so much detritus come from? According to an article in Pursuit:
A world map of the distribution of this frozen soil and muck reveals several very interesting things, the most outstanding aspect being that it lies low, on level plains or tablelands. Unless it was caused by some cosmic forces that we have not yet detected, it would appear to be a subaerial [flood] deposit derived from massive erosion of higher grounds and with steeper slopes. However, its depth in some places, and over enormous areas, has always caused even the most open-minded geologists to boggle. The Russians, who own the major land areas covered by this substance, have conducted prolonged studies on it for half a century and have, in some places, drilled down to over 4,000 feet, but still without reaching solid rock. The conundrum is, of course, [H]ow do you get that thickness of what is manifestly surface-derived material if it is the result of run-off?75All the supposed glacial floods described above flowed south but did not generate either the amount or depth of muck found around the Arctic Ocean. Again, this indicates that the original flood flowed northward and dropped most of its debris and sediment into and around the Arctic Ocean. The backflow traveled southward, breaking up the icecap, over the land and into other oceans. This backflow has been described as the floods occurring from the Washington scablands to Siberia's Altay Mountains.
However, this backflow carried with it less massive sediment particles, or loess. The loess is found south of the Pleistocene icecaps as a broad band across Europe, Asia, the United States and parts of southern Canada--between the 40 and 70 north latitudes. Southern hemispheric loess deposits are found in the Argentinean pampas, southwestern Australia, New South Wales and New Zealand. The band of loess in the northern hemisphere is broken in many places and is missing from the far eastern end of Siberia, which experienced the largest flood. However, south of the Siberian flood, in China, some of the largest loess deposits on Earth are found. This, of course, would be congruent with a large Siberian flood.
There are two theories for the formation of the loess: The establishment consensus theory, based on uniformitarian concepts, suggests that loess originated from glaciers and was laid down by wind currents over tens of thousands of years. However, boulders too large to have been carried by the wind are found all through loess deposits. Aeolian theory advocates suggest that, after the loess was deposited by wind currents, massive glacial floods moved it to new areas--thus explaining the nature of boulders, freshwater clams and snails found in deposits.
However, there is decisive evidence that the loess was not laid down gradually over tens of thousands of years. The loess contains Ice Age animal remains. Since loess had to have been the source of herbivore and snail plant food, then plants and trees had to have grown on the loess over long timespans. Today, in rainfall and temperate regions, grass, shrubs and trees are found growing in the loess' top layer--as can be seen in photographs taken of these regions. Loess is well known as a promoter of plant growth and is the source of China's river valley fertility. Therefore, over time, the loess soil in which these plants grew would produce a rich, dark humus or loam throughout the entire deposit. Over these large timespans, as the loess built up, layer upon layer of vegetation would decay into humus to be buried gradually by new aeolian-borne loess. But this is denied by the evidence. As J. K. Charlesworth pointed out in 1957, there is "some dissent [with the aeolian theory of loess formation] because the entire profile should resemble a humus horizon, [yet] the tubes [in the loess] have scarcely a trace of vegetation."76
Even if some of the loess, after being built up, had been moved by gigantic glacial floods to its present locations, it would be filled with humus and plant remains from top to bottom. What the aeolian advocates expect one to accept as probable is that glacial floods washed away the loess from the humus and vegetative remains, leaving these behind. Only by ignoring the evidence which supports a strictly fluvial origin for loess have the aeolian proponents been able to maintain their theory. No aeolian, gradualistic production of loess will create deposits nearly devoid of humus and other decayed vegetation, even by invoking later floods.
Before any critics address the question of the loess, they must explain how fertile material, which built up year after year during the Ice Age, would create a strata hundreds of feet deep, either moved by floods or filled with humus and decayed plant remains. They must also explain how only the loess was washed away by glacial floods.
Once again, regarding marine life and remains found in continental lakes or seas, if the ocean carried whales onto and deep into the continents, it would also carry other forms of sea life; wherever these life forms fell into lakes or inland seas and could adjust to new conditions, they would survive, reproduce and be present today. Lake Baikal, in eastern Siberia, is the largest freshwater lake in the world. Although it has a smaller surface area than the Great Lakes, it is so deep that it contains more water than the Great Lakes combined. Lake Baikal is located 1,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 1,000 miles from the Arctic Ocean. According to Kelly and Dachille, "Lake Baikal, in Siberia, also contains herring, salmon, marine sponges and seals."77 They also said,
The fact that lakes like Baikal...are very deep would add weight to the [oceanic flood] theory because large quantities of ocean water could have remained for a long time in these lakes with a very slow change to freshwater. This would have allowed the marine forms to have lived and to have adjusted themselves gradually to the new conditions. Then, too, salt water, being heavier than freshwater, might be concentrated at the bottom of these lakes.78Although a lake, over time, may fill up mostly with freshwater, an island sea would preserve its salinity.
Kelly and Dachille also showed that the landlocked Caspian Sea of Asia has waters whose contents and dissolved salts "are very [much] like [that of] the ocean."79 Now, supposedly, the Caspian Sea has been cut off from the ocean for many millions of years and receives its water from rivers. Over these years, its original salinity should have changed, however, the change is relatively small and bespeaks of a great, recent inundation from the ocean. Kelly and Dachille also showed that the Caspian Sea's "fauna bears distinct evidence of a former, but recent, mingling of the ocean with its waters for it includes salmon, herring and other ocean fish, with...porpoises and seals."80
According to Alfred M. Rehwinkel, "The seals found [in Lake Baikal] closely resemble [those] now found at Spitsbergen. It also seems significant that very similar seals are found in the Caspian Sea. Their remains have been found in the Aral Sea [in Soviet Central Asia, east of the Caspian Sea] as well."81 In East Africa, Lake Tanganyika is 4,700 feet deep and is far inland, forming the boundary between Tanzania and Zaire. It contains marine jellyfish and gastropods (snails) of a much earlier geological period. Kelly and Dachille emphasized that "jellyfish and gastropods could scarcely have mounted the falls of the Congo to get into Lake Tanganyika."82 Lake Onondaga, one of the Finger Lakes in New York State, near Syracuse, is inhabited by marine squids.83
More of this evidence will be presented in the following units on South America, Australia and Antarctica.
As reported in The New York Times:
Scientists have found fossil whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea....Nearly all the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up....Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be easy to study....Assemblages comparable to these are virtually unknown in the Andes, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds.84Oyster shell beds like those found all across the southern part of the United States are also found in South America. These unfossilized shells share the same ground level as the fossilized whales. According to Charles H. Hapgood:
Not long after the appearance of Cuvier's great work, Professor Charles Lyell was shown, in the Museum of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, a block of limestone from Santas, in Brazil, obtained by Captain Elliott of the [United States] Navy at about 1827.The problems with this discovery are similar to those of the whale find in Lompoc, California. Whales should not be found, largely intact, in the Andes Mountains; the raising of the mountains should have obliterated them and only small organisms would survive the twisting, bending and shaking inherent in earthquakes that supposedly lifted these mountains to their present heights over many millions of years. Earthquakes shake and shatter rock, and the thousands of earthquakes needed to lift the Andes Mountains to their present heights would never leave such a large assemblage of whales and other marine life forms in such an extraordinarily good condition.
The block contained a human skull, teeth and other bones, together with fragments of shells, some of which still retained traces of their original colors. Remains of several hundred other human skeletons were dug out of similar...tufa at the same place, where the presence of serpulae [shells] in the rock suggested that all the remains were deposited through marine action, for, as Lyell observed...the shell[s] would not have been brought so far inland by natives for food. Dr. C. D. Meigs, who wrote an account of this discovery, said:
"A question naturally arises as to the date of that catastrophe, which enclosed several hundred individuals in that tufa of the Rio Santas....
It seems unlikely that these remains were formally buried by sorrowing friends. It is unlikely that so solid a stone should have been formed at so great a distance from the sea....No doubt they are coexistent with the emerged land; they are not to be considered as the results of human industry.
The shore of the Atlantic must have formerly swept nearly in a line with these remarkable deposits....Within this bed, or nearer than it to the sea [as in the southern United States], are found fossil bones of elephants, which cannot be so old as the unfossilized oyster shells, since they could not have been fossilized [before] the existence of the soil out of which they are dug, unless you consider them as boulders, which is inadmissible."85
With respect to the loess or Pampas mud deposits in South America, Alcide d'Orbigny stated that they were laid down by a flood catastrophe which destroyed the megafauna and rapidly lifted the Andes to their present heights:
It would seem that one cause destroyed the terrestrial animals of South America and that this cause is to be found in great dislocations of the ground caused by the upheaval of the Cordilleras.The Pampean loess deposits, like those in Europe, Asia and America, were supposedly laid down over many thousands of years and, therefore, should be loaded from top to bottom with vegetative loam; but such is not the case.
If not, it is difficult to conceive, on the one hand, the sudden and fortuitous destruction of the great animals which inhabited the American continents, and on the other, the vast deposit of [Pampean mud or loess].
I argue that this destruction was caused by an invasion of the continent by water, a view which is completely en rapport with the facts presented by the great Pampas deposit, which was clearly laid down by water.
How, otherwise, can we account for this complete destruction and homogeneity of the Pamp[ean] deposits containing bones? I find...evident proof of this in the immense number of bones and of entire animals whose numbers are greatest at the outlets of the valleys, as Mr. Darwin show[ed]....
This hypothesis necessitates that the Pampas mud was deposited suddenly, as the result of violent floods of water which carried off the soil and other superfluous debris, [mingling] them together. This homogeneity of the soil in all parts of the Pampas, even in places 200 leagues apart, is very remarkable.
These are not different strata differently colored, but a homogeneous mass, which is more or less porous and shows no signs of distinct stratification. The deposit is also of one uniform color, as if it had been mixed in one muddy flood slightly tinted by oxide or iron....
Another argument may be drawn from the fact that the Pampas mud is identical in color and appearance with earth in which the fossil remains occur in the caverns and fissures of Minas Gerais in Brazil....86
The ridges in the Simpson Desert Outback, which are hundreds of miles long, are one of the strangest topographical features found in central Australia.89 These ridges are not blown into the normal barkan sand dunes; they are covered and held in position by small rocks and pebbles. What would scour a desert floor to move billions of tons of rock debris and detritus into ridges running parallel to each other for hundreds of miles? Where the ridges bend, one can trace the ridge path as it gradually changes direction, over many miles, from north to southwest, as would be produced by an immense flow of water.
The ridges occupy approximately 475,000 square miles. They run southward, then veer slightly to the southwest, as if the above-mentioned flood had been influenced by the Coriolis force. It appears that an immense oceanic tide, flowing south over Australia, scoured the land and left over a thousand ridges in its wake. Wind would never create long ridges of such material running for hundreds of miles. The whale remains and loess deposits described above are found south of this terrain.90 Ridges pointing southward to the sites of whale bones and loess deposits make the concept of an immense flood almost certainly correct.
This discovery consists of a number of corpses of giant fish, together with other marine specimens, which they found on the surface of an ice sheet over 100 feet thick and more than a mile from its seaward edge. The fish were up to six feet in length and well preserved, though some had lost their heads [as had the giant fish found in Siberian muck] and had been pecked by skua gulls....Other explorers also discovered small "schools" of headless fish, on the Ross Ice Shelf, often attached to rocks..93
Interest quickens when we learn that no less than six of these large fish were found by the two Scott Expeditions over  years ago, five in [1902 to 1903] and one in 1911. Five of them were on top of the ice and headless, and quite recognizable though obviously a long time dead.
The sixth was caught by accident in the spring of 1903 and was also headless.92
A few problems cannot be explained by gradualistic processes. In addition to sponges, which are bottom-dwelling organisms, and fish, which live from the surface water to great depths, large crystals of Glauber's salt were also found. Now, if the ice scraped the sea bed to trap the sponges, they would not have been found on the surface of the ice shelf. The Ross Ice Shelf is being built up on the top by snowfall at the edge of the sea, but, even if this melted away in the summer, it does not explain the fish, which could easily swim away from the gradually advancing ice. The headless fish were apparently decapitated when they struck land, as they moved with the current.
The Ross Ice Shelf is also moving outward, away from the continent and calving off huge pieces of itself as icebergs. If, in 1903, the Scott Expedition found fish in the ice, and, over the last 30 or so years, other icebound fish were found, this clearly indicates that the ice was exuded from the Antarctic continent, which must have contained the fish. In essence, it is known that fish, sponges and salt crystals are found throughout the ice. This points to a flood which deposited these organisms and material deeper inland, and which, as ice under pressure, moves toward the sea.
Saline water is being discharged, from beneath the Antarctic glacier, into a dry valley:
A saline discharge from beneath Taylor Glacier has abundant halite (NaCl), aragonite (CaCO3) and other salts. The quantities and varieties of salts in the discharge, and in lakes and soils of other places in Victoria Land, are too great to reflect present weathering. No simple origin of all salts is indicated.94Lakes freezing over and receiving either snow from precipitation or windblown snow from the glacier, which then melts in the Antarctic summer, would be mixed with freshwater over thousands of years. This would dilute the content of such lakes. Victoria Land lakes reflect this.
How does one explain not only the saline discharge, but the fact that these salts are found in inland lakes and in the soils of other places in Victoria Land? The implication is clear: The salts reflect the sea water trapped on the land, which either settled into the soil or was kept in lakes. The scientists' general belief is that the Antarctic icecap was created by snowfall over millions of years. Snow melts to freshwater. Over four Ice Ages, the icecap should have melted many times and washed away any salt on the land or in the lakes; thus, why is there so much salt in this subglacial stream? According to Robert F. Black et al., "The total volume of the discharge, which may not be all salt-rich, is 3,000 [to] 6,000 cubic meters."95 In this case, an immense amount of salt has been issuing from the Taylor Glacier for thousands of years. Since the geologists admit that weathering of rock from the interior of the continent will not generate this much salt, one is left with the alternative that this salt-rich flow stems from sea water trapped far inland.
Salt seeps down and out of sea ice. According to Edwin Muller, "Sea ice is salty when it first forms, but it loses its salt and, in six months, is fit to drink. In a year, it cannot be distinguished from freshwater ice."96 Therefore, the great outsurging of water with salt in solution is fully compatible with the concept of an oceanic tidal incursion over the Antarctic continent.
If much of the Antarctic ice formed recently, the youthful nature of the ice should be clearly discernible. John G. Weihaupt, a geologist, came to the defense of the Oronteus Fineus map of 1531 and the Mercator map of 1538, which depict the Antarctic continental features with remarkable accuracy.97
He was severely criticized for the suggestion that there had been extremely recent deglaciation of this continent's ice sheet. However, "Weihaupt responded with a massive bibliography supporting the idea of recent changes in the Antarctic ice cover."98 He showed that other researchers have suggested that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet may also have been deglaciated during the Pleistocene.99 Though the dating does not conform precisely with Velikovsky's theory, the evidence for recent reimplacement of new ice in Antarctica is in line with it.
Around the Earth, inland marine organisms, sediment such as muck and loess, and unusual topographical features indicate an oceanic flood in recent times.
1 See Immanuel Velikovsky (A), Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), pp. 148-152 and Immanuel Velikovsky (B), Earth in Upheaval (New York, 1955), pp. 46-49.
2 Reginald Daly, "Rise and Fall of Floodwaters--Historical Record," Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries (Nutley, New Jersey, 1975), p. 117.
3 Joseph Davidovits and Margie Morris, The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (New York, 1988), pp. 21-22.
4 Richard C. Hoagland, The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever (Berkeley, California, 1992), pp. 361-362.
5 David H. Childress, Lost Cities and Ancient Mysteries of Africa and Arabia (Stelle, Illinois, 1989), p. 128.
6 Derek Ager, The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History (New York, 1993), pp. 179-180.
7 James Trifil, "Whale Feet," Discover (May, 1991): 45-48.
8 Allan O. Kelly and Frank Dachille, "Tunisia and Algeria," Target Earth (Carlsbad, California, 1953), p. 168.
9 Henry H. Horworth (A), The Mammoth and the Flood (London, England, 1887), pp. 321-322.
10 Ibid., p. 297.
12 Ibid., p. 365.
13 William R. Corliss, Science Frontiers (Glen Arm, Maryland, 1984), p. 217.
14 Henry H. Horworth (B), "Recent Changes in Circumpolar Lands," Nature 5 (1871): 163.
15 Velikovsky (B), op. cit., pp. 46-48.
16 Ibid., pp. 48-49.
17 Kelley and Dachille, op. cit., p. 172.
18 Frederic B. Jueneman, "Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry," Chemical and Engineering News 54 (October 11, 1976): 40.
19 Stephen Jay Gould, "Toward the Vindication of Punctual Changes," Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism, eds. W. A. Beggren and J. A. Van Couvering (Princeton, New Jersey, 1984), pp. 17-18.
20 John Ledyard, John Ledyard's Journey Through Russia and Siberia, ed. Stephen D. Watrous (Madison, Wisconsin, 1966), p. 172.
21 J. K. Charlesworth, The Quaternary Era with Special Reference to its Glaciation I (London, England, 1957), p. 440-45.
22 Velikovsky (B), op. cit., p. 42.
23 Warren C. Hunt, "Catastrophic Termination of the Last Wisconsin Ice Advance: Observations in Alberta and Idaho," Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 25 (1977): 468.
26 Ibid., p. 119.
27 Mark L. Lord and Alan E. Kehew, "Sedimentology and Paleohydrology of Glacial-lake Outburst Deposits in Southeastern Saskatchewan and Northwestern North Dakota," Geographical Society of America Bulletin 99 (November, 1987): 672.
28 Isaac and Janet Asimov, Frontiers II (New York, 1993), p. 110-111. Also see John Shaw, "Drumlins, Sub-glacial Melt Water Floods and Ocean Responses," Geology 17 (September, 1989): 853-856.
29 Scott Fields, "Megafloods at Ice Age's End," Earth: the Science of Our Planet (May, 1994), pp. 12-13.
30 C. Warren Hunt, Environment of Violence (Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1990), pp. 117-119.
31 J. Shaw, "Book Review of Drumlin Symposium," Quaternary Research 30 (1988): 354.
32 Joseph M. Trefthen and John N. Harris, "A Fossiliferous Esker-like Deposit," American Journal of Science 238 (1940): 408.
33 P. Kropotkin, "On the Asar of Finland," Report of the British Association--1897 (London, England, 1897): 648.
34 Henry H. Horworth (C), "The Asar or Osar of Scandinavia and Finland," Geological Magazine 35 (1898): 200.
35 Robert D. Jarrett and Harold E. Malde, "Paleodischarge of the Late Pleistocene Bonneville Flood, Snake River, Idaho, Computed from New Evidence," Geological Society of America Bulletin 99 (July, 1987): 127.
36 Hunt, op. cit., p. 126.
38 Hunt, op. cit., pp. 456-467.
39 Velikovsky (B), op. cit., pp. 1-3.
40 Paul R. Carlson and Herman A. Karl, "Development of Large Submarine Canyons in the Bering Sea, Indicated by Morphologic, Seismic and Sedimentologic Characteristics," Geological Society of America Bulletin 100 (October, 1988): 1594.
42 J. W. Dawson, "Some Unsolved Problems in Geology," Science 2 (1883): 190.
43 Charles S. Gwynne, "Swell and Swale Pattern of the Mankato Lobe of the Wisconsin Drift Plain in Iowa," Journal of Geology 50 (1942): 50ff.
44 Stephen Jay Gould, "When the Unorthodox Prevails," New Scientist 79 (1978): 942.
45 V. R. Baker, "Paleohydrology and Sedimentology of Lake Missoula Flooding in Eastern Washington," Geological Society of America Special Paper 144 (1973): 79ff.
46 Douglas E. Cox, "Drumlins and Diluvial Currents," Creation Research Society Quarterly (the CRSQ) 16 (1979): 154.
47 Mark Maslin, "Waiting for the Polar Meltdown," New Scientist (September 4, 1993): 39.
48 Ibid., p. 40.
49 Richard Monastersky, "Staggering Through the Ice Ages: What Made the Planet Careen Between Climate Extremes?," Science News 146 (July 30, 1994): 74-76.
50 Taxonomic Note: Foraminiferans (formerly foraminifera) are protozoans of the rhizopodan order Foraminiferida (formerly Foraminifera).
51 T. Tosk, "Foraminifers in the Fossil Record: Implications for an Ecological Zonation Model," Origins 15 (1988): 8-18.
52 Alec J. Smith, "A Catastrophic Origin for the Paleovalley System of the Eastern English Channel," Geology 64 (1985): 72.
54 Ibid., p. 73.
55 A. Brawer, General Paleontology (Chicago, Illinois, 1959), p. 13.
56 Velikovsky (B), op. cit., pp. 56-58.
57 H. N. Hutchinson, "Extinct Whales and Wombats," Extinct Monsters and Creatures of Other Days (New York, 1911), p. 300.
58 Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 823.
59 James Geikie, The Great Ice Age, 3rd ed. (London, England, 1885), pp. 149-150. See also Ignatius Donelly, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, reprint (New York, 1970), p. 50.
60 Asa Elfstrm, "The Bldakatj Boulder Delta, Lapland, Northern Sweden," Geografiska Annaler, Series A 64A-65A (1982-1983): 201-225.
61 "Whale Bones 330 Feet Above Sea Level," Nature 38 (1888): 134.
62 Horworth (B), op. cit., pp. 162-163.
63 "Prehistoric Whale's Skeleton Found 24 Miles From the Sea," The New York Times [New York] (December 9, 1925): p. 1.
64 D. L. Dineley and P. A. Garrett, "Whale Remains in Glacial Ice," Nature 183 (1959): 272.
65 Horworth (B), op. cit.
66 Horworth (A), op. cit., p. 93.
67 Ibid., p. 188.
68 Hutchinson, op. cit., p. 299.
69 Ibid., p. 300.
71 Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam, trans. James Cleugh (Boston, Massachusetts, 1956), p. 204.
72 Ibid., p. 212.
73 Victor R. Baker, Geraldo Benito and Alexey N. Rudoy, "Paleohydrology of Late Pleistocene Superflooding, Altay Mountains, Siberia," Science 259 (January 15, 1993): 348-350.
74 "The Four Oceans at the Top of the World," New Scientist 21 (1964): 7.
75 "Much About Muck," Pursuit 2 (October, 1969): 68-69.
76 Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 529.
77 Kelly and Dachille, op. cit., p. 172.
81 Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood (St. Louis, Missouri, 1951), p. 189.
82 Kelly and Dachille, loc. cit.
83 John M. Clarke, "The Squids from Onondaga Lake, NY," Science 16 (1902): 947.
84 Malcolm W. Browne, "Whale Fossils High in Andes Show How Mountains Rose from Sea," The New York Times (March 12, 1987): p. A 22.
85 Charles H. Hapgood, The Path of the Pole (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1970), pp. 289-290.
86 Alcide d'Orbigny, Voyage dans l'Amrique Mridionale, 3 vols. (Paris, France, 1842), from Hapgood, Ibid., pp. 293-294.
87 Charles Laseron, Ancient Australia (New York, 1969), pp. 225-226.
88 Ibid., p. 226.
89 Medford Taylor, "The Simpson Outback," National Geographic (April, 1992): 66, 67, 74.
90 "Loess," The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology 10 (New York, 1987), p. 164.
91 Samples sent for radiocarbon testing suggest a fish age of 1,000 years, but, as pointed out elsewhere, this dating method is not reliable, especially in water-logged material.
92 D. L. Dineley and P. A. Garrett, "Whale Remains in Glacier Ice," Nature 183 (1959): 272.
93 "The Progress of Science: Discovery in Antarctica Puzzles Scientists," Discovery 22 (February, 1961): 46 and "Fish Remains Support Polar Ice Theory," Science Digest 49 (March, 1961): 30.
94 Robert F. Black et al., "Saline Discharge from Taylor Glacier, Victoria Land, Antarctica," Journal of Geology 73 (1965): 175.
96 Edwin Muller, "The Top of the World," Our Amazing World of Nature: Its Marvels & Mysteries (New York, 1969), p. 168.
97 John G. Weihaupt, "Historic Cartographic Evidence for Holocene Changes in the Antarctic Ice Cover," EOS 65 (1984): 493.
98 Daniel J. Milton, "Antarctic Ice Cover," EOS 65 (1984): 1226.
This page has been visited:
Free Hit Counter
times since the morning of 3 March, 05.