Crater Burchard?

View Larger Map


Subject: Australasian Tektite Impact 780 Ka Crater Identified in Spratly Islands

From: Hermann GW Burchard


Date: November 3, 2013

There seems to be a recent update to Google Earth,– apologoizing for over-reliance on this dubious source — the ocean between Vietnam and the Phillipines, the South China Sea. At least, I have not seen this much detail on earlier visits to the site. There now is clearly in evidence what we have corresponded about earlier in the Spratly Islands (plural Spratlies uncommon), which are contested by at least half a dozen nations bordering the S China Sea, as well as the U.S. who claim this is international territory. The reason is that the islands are oil-rich.

The topic I am referring to is the Australasian tektite impact crater long rumored to be in this region. Because of ongoing oil drilling efforts — presumable efforts, I know of no specific news although it probably is out there — it is unlikely that specifics are easy to locate.

Anyway, a multiring circular to oval impact structure is now clearly evident on the latest Google Earth updates. The diameter is about 175 miles/ 275 km, i.e., gigantic as expected from the large tektite strewnfield (BTW, that’s a Germanism, Streufeld, as my daughter recognized immediately when I told her about it).

Also, there was a total regional extinction event that in particular wiped out the human population, early members of a race related to the Melanesians and to people living in India and West to Aden, but absent between Rangoon and Melanesia/ Papua New Guine. This race probably made the lithic industry that Mike Morwood et al discovered on Flores Island that’s 1 Ma old. The much later Homo Floresiensis (“Hobbits”) probably are descendants as are various so-called pygmy races including Andaman and Flores Islanders, and probably the Ainu — speculating like crazy but not insane, adding 2 plus 2 and getting four.

The age is known very precisely at 780 Ka, for the strewnfield, not the crater — this may be known to the oil men in the Spratlies. The precise agreement with the Brunhes – Matuyama geomagnetic reversal was proven more than 10 years ago using Chinese loess sequences.

The 275 km impact structure is centered at an atoll called Union Reefs, or Union Bank, map 9.8,114.4, and this may well have arisen on the top of the central rebound uplift.

I attach two Google Earth images, one narrow view, one wide view. The wide view shows the crater to be on the SE Asian craton, sedimentary rocks. If in this wider image you examine the Spratlies, something extremely dramatic and illuminating emerges. See that big blob of shoal to the NE of the crater? This is called Reed Bank (as G E will reveal in close up, and I have known for the longest), so it must be close to the ocean’s surface. Also, see the embayment to the SW of crater, again shoals, and finally the linear streaks SW to NE from the embayment to the crater and up to Reed Bank. Evidently, as the impact happened on or near the continental slope into Jurassic sediments, the entire slope collapsed, as would be easy to happen, and slipped way toward the NE, with Reed Bank a broken-off piece of near-shore shoaling. — This also may explain why there was so much tektite stuff hurled upward . . .

A very similar event is known to have happened in the N Atlantic W of the Outer Hebrides, vnear the Far Oer Islands map 60.0, -5.0 with broken-off pieces on G.E.

The source rock for the tektites has been dated to the Jurassic in a 1992 paper, by Blum. Papanastassiou, Koeberl, Wasserburg. Of these Koeberl is a familiar name to me, being very influential as to what can be published about cosmic body impacts. This is Christian Koeberl of the Univ of Vienna. They proved the Jurassic age for the tektites, and by inference I conclude that age for the seafloor in the S China Sea, where the Spratlies are located. The fact that the crater is not on the basalt ocean floor but on continental crust is very important for consistency with the results of this paper of Blum et al incl Koeberl (and for the validity of my inference). Here are the two images, I hope they meet your expectations:


  • Jim Coyle

    cevin; Yes I did go to the MALAGABAY site and read quite a bit there. Thee some very interesting concepts out there. I hadn’t heard about the beaufort sea impact and what it did. Again very interesting. I like the idea of a gulf impact but I’m not sure about it passing clean through the earth to the SE Asia area.

  • chicken little

    Cevin Q you will want to do a little bit of searching and reading on Canarian observed eye witnessed and recorded history and ie ‘stories” about how a comet made their Volcano, then you might want to like a puzzle, piece the Caribbean Islands where they once were before you decide that the gulf made billion and billions of years ago in some made up concepts like a “Permian extinction” that never happened .

    Jim personally I think those skid marks between Antarctica and South America only prove that stuff happened very fast and not slowly.

    Science-tism wants to tell us that caboose you see ( which is only proof of movement )and those tracks ( skid marks) were created by this over billions and billions of years.
    The that same kind of hand cranking over and over and over is what got them the years they stole to create the theory of evolution.

  • Cevin Q

    Chicken little
    Really, permian extinction, a “made up concept”,
    I would suggest you do a little reading.
    And what does canarian mythology have to do with an event some 250mya.
    I’m not discounting the value of possible first hand accounts of indigenous people, but to claim that humans actually witnessed the formation of the gulf is , well , just ludicrous.

  • George Howard

    Watch it, Chick. I’ll let you cluck — but one cruel rant — and time to pluck.

  • Steve Garcia

    I got your back, GH…

  • George; Twice in the last couple of days I’ve posted comments and they were accepted by the captcha and posted. I would come back the next day and they were gone. Is there a problem with my posting content or is it just my lack of tech expertise.

  • Chickie baby; The last thing I was inferring was that those skids were anything but an impact. No way do you take out a land bridge in slo mo. Does anyone know what effect a large impact has on the co2 levels in the atmosphere? Will it spike the levels up or down?

  • chicken little

    what Jimmy Darlin ..

    SO maybe you are thinking way to tiny ?

    SO what if the same mechanisms that moved South American( and north america ) moved Antartica….. and that is why the skid marks are the same both one north and south of where they once met up once . if they once met up there ( what you are calling the impact site )and moved away from there. the skid marks would create the exact same structures both north and south of where they met up if they moved at all away from that point .

    So maybe you or someone can prove to me that any impact that tiny makes those kind of skid marks that long and then how they will maintained there in that place . If that whole zone was rock no tiny meteor is going to make that long a skid or that looks like that if it is rock. if it is sand and such a shallow hit into sand that can’t be there billions of years . not in those water ways .

    maybe we need think BIGGER…. Now what if those two continents can/could/did make huge skid marks because they are moved.. no don’t want to lose you here now Darlin..

    What if they were pushed very quickly and a very long ways from where they started off . now considering they both probably occupied the same spaces at one time .. or were at one time connected or even part of each other . or maybe had lands under peru as connections.. that might also explain those marks that look like that .

    but if you put south America or at least the surface of it back to where it was ( pangea-ish concept , not their fauxtime timelines ) against or under central Africa you can see where they were both connected at that spot . After you adjust it for Africa’s rotation from probably the same impact it all fits quite nicely .

    Now one strangely cool thing is that Antarctica I suspect it rolled out to where it is now. rolled out from under something huge.. which means the giant object was probably moving one direction but spinning another direction maybe . Just like balls on pool tables and when two round objects hit each other it causes them to spin at least the smaller one will spin. I mean you plan for the spin when dealing with round objects on a pool table so why not impacts ? especially of large objects . it is so cool to unroll Antarctica, obviously it was spun into place. which kind of blows tectonic theories all to heck and back.. now just roll Antartica up against where is Peru is now and you can see how some of their (SA) mysteries become solved.
    I can see how they moved away from each other at one date and then moved in the same direction on another date . which could be up to three major impacts but it was very very very large objects and were probably spinning around objects , which like a tube of toothpaste can put things anyplace in any configuration , unless someone saw the event from the heavens. only then might they know the laws of it.

    but it is probably just two impacts and I can’t figure out how it happened that way yet.. yet! but I love puzzles .

    I am more than willing to learn something..
    but someone has just got to prove to me how that can be a meteor and how that small a meteor made that big a bumps/underwater mountains of rock dirt and or sand.. or even sand that goes that far .. and that deep for that far ! that is a long long long ways .. How that little thing made those giant skid lines hundreds of miles of giant/tall and long (underwater mountains ) and how they can still be there after multiple billions and billions of years in those waters ? Because with that tiny thing( there isn’t even a hole of an impact site and it . it has to be sand and and sand don’t impact like that .. . and it is maybe a special kind of sand ( maybe like sands that washes off of continents that moved from their places quickly even ) both from beneath and above ground dirt. BUT mounds that can still be that large and uniform and survive after an impact and being pushed/ then washed away by water for billions of years ? I mean the rest of the ocean is all nealy level why because water levels sand.

    so I’m not buying..
    So since we here on turtle island have a ‘sterile layer” of moon dirt from one side of turtle island to the other side and down into at least brazil over all the way to the middle east . I know big stuff hits us .. I’m sticking with a moon impact to at the very least North America … then we also have ” sterile sand ” layers deposited as it got pushed along and sand washed over sterile moon layer in places.. some places and moon dirt is visible now in other places … and all on top of turtle island is the only thing that can make sense to me and the the rest of the almost or just smart enough . I have no idea what hit Antartica but it was big and it was probably spinning..
    Chances are the Atlantic ocean( as we know it and call it now ) isn’t billions of years old.. it was probably formed in one day.
    and so was Antarctica ( as we know it and call it now ) and getting here inche by inch doesn’t explain why we have the Caribbean islands at all.
    the skid marks probably prove at least north and south america moved very fast to where they are now . and if they prove that then they prove Antarctica moved by the same exact same laws. and not billions of years ago .

    Sure there was tiny little strikes around where something huge hits us, like cb’s filled with sand. etc . like the stuff falling off of what hits us .. but those things can be used to make time and lies .. but they will never explain what is happening. and what was happening in recorded history.
    There will never be enough billions to explain it .
    because any kinds of real billions has it’s own effects too.

    Excuse me Darlin ..
    ( sorry I don’t have time to fix all that needs fixes )
    I have animals to take care of before dark.

  • Chicken little; Your concept of the land masses spinning away from each other is deffinitely plausable and is a possibility. I’ve been looking at maps of continental positions around 33 million yrs ago. The ocean floor in that area has been dated to that time. The continents were pretty much in modern positions by then. In none of the images of Panagea are the continents of Antartica and south America shown in contact with each other. The curves on the tips do not show up until about 65 mya. The only way I can think of the impact moving all that mass is that it came in at somewhat shallow angle but at incredible speeds. Bring your idea into the newer time frame and who knows. Soon as I get home tonight I’ll be feeding the critters also.

  • George Howard

    Not at all, Jim. Not sure what happened because they are not in my “unapproved” box. Sorry about that — let me know if it happens again.

  • Dennis; I’ve been going over more data on the Drake passage. It appears there were at least 4 –5? impacts. The first weree just on the North edge of the main trench. They are approx 200mi dia each. The main impact is approx 600 mi dia with a 200 mi dia 4th impact behind #3 partially filling it in. The main trench is approx 1500 mi long and fairly consistent depth of 4000m. There appears to be a 2nd fairly shallow trench in conjunction with the first 2 impacts. Both trench lines show forward sliding of sea floor sediments to the east. I’ll pass along any more tidbits as I come across them.

  • George Howard

    OK. What is the recommended name of the proposed crater?

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis and Jim –

    I am open to this idea, but there is a long way to make it stick.

    I looked up a great deal on “crater chain” the other day, and have been digesting it since then. The more I look at this “plate” the more I think it does resemble a slightly arced crater chain. Arced ones are not the norm, from what I’ve seen so far, but they do exist on moons and terrestrial planets.

    With all the island arcs and submerged arcs in this region, these are features that I am guessing that the standard interpretation of the Scotia Plate does not address. But with all the arcs, it looks a LOT like a crater chain. And as such someone in the academic community should HAVE TO provide reasons to NOT consider the crater chain explanation of the features present. I’d love to hit one of them with this in person and watch them speculate and call their speculation “scientific.” FYI: Speculation has NO business in science other than as a way of choosing a direction. A speculation can never stand in real science, unless turned into a hypothesis by being backed up with empirical evidence.

    That last circular feature to the east – that is illustrated partly by the Sandwich Island arc – also has a continuation of that arc in the bathyspheric info displaying not only on Google Earth but on scientific pages about the Scotia Plate. It is really a true circle. Also look up “Scotia Plate” on Google Image and look at what the various images from articles and papers show. That circle appears to be about 600 km in diameter.

    There is also the HUGE circular feature midway along the chain. It appears to be at least 1100 km in diameter. On the south edge there are two concentric arcs about 80 km apart, and the 1100 is measured to the inner arc.

    Overlapping that one is one slightly centered to the ESE about 250 km and about the same 600 km diameter of the Sandwich Island “crater.” It is about 770 km from the Sandwich Island circle on a heading of about 285°.

    Then there is the last one, tangent to Cape Horn and SE of it. That one appears to be about 400 km in diameter.

    There appears to be another, slightly overlapping one, about 400 km SE of that one, and it is about 400 km diameter, too. That is about 470 km west of the smaller middle crater.

    All these cannot be explained simply by the Antarctic Plate dragging the S American plate tip to the east into the southern edge of the Atlantic Plate. Such forces should not be forming arcs and circles, but sheared linear features and ones only running west to east.
    MANY of the crater chains on planets and moons show overlapping craters.

    Once again, I will point out the temporal element (which I discussed without conclusion on comments about Michigan and the Saginaw impact). Besides moving through the solar System at about 30 km/sec, the Earth also rotates at basically 1° every 4 minutes. At that latitude 1° of longitude equals about 60 km. So, figure about 15 km per minute.

    Given the center-to-center distances between these (east to west) – 770 km at 385°, 250 km W, 480 km west, 400 km NW – the longitudinal distances are about 750 km, 250 km, 480 km, and 280 km. Translating to time (at 15 km per minute) those would be about 50, 17, 32, and 19 minutes apart, roughly calculated.

    For comparison, those are not nearly as separated in time as the SL-9 fragments, but probably within what might be a normal range of fragments. Did it break up recently before impact? On its last flyby? Or on its way inbound? I think it would be more likely top have been the earlier flyby.

    All this assumes that it was an impact as suggested by the circular features. There are other impact features on Earth that are less obvious circles, so this is a good possibility, IMHO. And if so those numbers will be reasonably close.

  • chicken little

    All these cannot be explained simply by the Antarctic Plate dragging the S American plate tip to the east into the southern edge of the Atlantic Plate. Such forces should not be forming arcs and circles, but sheared linear features and ones only running west to east.
    MANY of the crater chains on planets and moons show overlapping craters.”

    yes there is no evidence that any kind of circular plate movement going on there because there is not any kind of plate movement on the NewZealand or on the African side of the drag ( south or north )but probably south . . you would think that it would be more evident on the NewZealand side if and impact really happened like that on the South American side. and any spin of some kind would be apparent there too and it is not and no tracks of it even being washed over either. . but there is exactly the same “tracks” of proof of movement on the far side where part of Antarctica went farther south. smaller tracks but the land mass/ crust was moved 3 or 4 thousand miles. I doubt much sand was left by then.

  • George; I think the drake passage impact should be referred as the Drake Crater Fields. Don’t want to confuse any of gradualist population with any quick change of nomenclature

  • George; Do you have an e-mail address for MR. Boslough? I have a question I hope he can answer if he is so inclined.

  • Barry Weathersby
  • Steve Garcia

    Good get, Barry!

    I particularly found one comment amusing, where the commenter seemed to think Hollywood moveies like “Meteor” and “Deep Impact” were evidence that “THE THREAT IS REAL”.

    Even if I agree with him that the threat is real, let’s all just make sure we don’t have tinfoil hats on.

  • Steve,George, Dennis; I came across and article in the Antarctic Sun ( funded by the NSF) about research being done by 2 scientists Dr. David Barbeau from the University of South Carolina and Dr.Ian Daziel from the university of Texas. They are both trying to date the Drakes Passage opening. Both men have made some interesting findings. Dr Barbeau has found that sediments on the South American side of the passage are basically the same as sediments from elsewhere in South America. And sediments from the Antarctic side of the passage are pretty much in line with sediments from around antarctica. Dr Daziel was studying sediments from the bottom of the passage by dragging net baskets and analyzing the bottom rocks. Many drop stones but the Scotia plate lithography is totally different from any deep ocean plate composition. Analyzation of findings are still going on at this time and results will be released as they are available. If George can direct me as to how to get the article on the tusk I will do so

  • Steve, George, Dennis; With further snooping I found that Dr Daziel has determined that the Scotia plate lithosphere is made of volcanic discharge. He’s calling it a slab window. He also claims that it is sinking and the volconoes that created it are now dormant and under water. I’m starting to think that this similar to the Deccan, Siberian traps and the Snake river basalts in that they were most likely created by extremely large impacts that cracked the earths crust and allowed magma to flow on to the surfaced for millions of years until the crust finally healed it self.The Deccan and Siberian traps have craters of the proper time frames. I believe the Yellowstone hot spot is left over from the snake River flows. And that leaves Drake Passage as a good possiblity. Now Dr Daziel dates Drake Passage at approx 12m yrs. If he is using bottom rock dredgings for dating he may be going too young and need to go deeper to get to the true basemant age. It would be nice to see another 34 million yr age. But for now this will do.

  • Jim Coyle

    Steve; In your post on 1-10-14 you mentioned the Temporal element in refernce to Michigan and Saginaw bay. Would you go over that again for me? Back in November — December you also mentioned you were reading into the Kankakee Torrent and would back about that. Anything cooking there?

  • George; I plugged some num,ber into the calculator provided by Pierson Barretto and the results were interesting. I know the approximate volume of the crater but was looking for possible impactor size and speed. What I found was that according to the program the crater created was almost 1/2 refilled with blast melt. When I was reading Dr Daziel’s paper he mentioned that the basement floor he was finding on the Scotia was volcanigenic. Could blast melt pass for volcanic activity?

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim –

    I have not done any work on all of that since back then. It was making my head HURT! I had to take a breather.

    Here is what I said then:
    “Once again, I will point out the temporal element (which I discussed without conclusion on comments about Michigan and the Saginaw impact). Besides moving through the solar System at about 30 km/sec, the Earth also rotates at basically 1° every 4 minutes. At that latitude 1° of longitude equals about 60 km. So, figure about 15 km per minute.

    Given the center-to-center distances between these (east to west) – 770 km at 385°, 250 km W, 480 km west, 400 km NW – the longitudinal distances are about 750 km, 250 km, 480 km, and 280 km. Translating to time (at 15 km per minute) those would be about 50, 17, 32, and 19 minutes apart, roughly calculated.”

    1. As fragments come in hours or minutes apart, the target – the Earth – is rotating under their path. At 60°S that surface’s rotation amounts to about 60 km per minute.

    2. Once caught in the Earth’s gravity well, the fragments are in a geocentric system – no longer in the Sun’s control as much as n the Earth’s. They are all falling toward the Earth’s center of gravity (C.G.), basically toward the center of the Earth.

    3. That CG is moving, but once caught in its gravity well, the fragments are moving with it (while spiraling around it/toward it).

    4. There are 5 craters in the crater chain, meaning four gaps between them. Measuring their distances and translating those into time, I came up with the numbers shown. The measurements are rough. The centers are indistinct, but I tried to get as close to the centers as possible.

    5. Since the centers were not all on the same latitude, I did a bit of trig to come up with E-W distances to use for longitudinal differences.

    6. Once those longitudinal differences were established, those also translated to TIME – how much time between impacts.

    7. If I did the math right, then the fragments were sequentially about 50, 17, 32, and then 19 minutes apart.

    8. THOSE times are translatable to the distance the fragments had between them before impacting.

    As to Michigan and Saginaw:

    A. IF Saginaw and the Michigan Basin both happened in the same onslaught, then since the path is NE-SW there is some E-W vector involved (meaning longitude and, thus, time).

    B. However, if they came in on the same path, the Saginaw impactor and the Basin impactor would seem to have come in at the same time. Time differential = zero. (This is in contradiction to SL/9, which impactors hit at very DIFFERENT longitudes – which was due to their spacing.) I DO assume the Michigan Basin impactor came in at the same heading. (The If I am wrong on that the math still holds, IMHO.

    C. SL/9 fragments WERE on the same path, so we can make a reasonable guess that Saginaw and the Michigan Basin impactors were also on the same path as each other.

    D. Why not separate impactors at different times? Ah, that NE-SW angle would be essentially impossible to replicate at the same latitude and longitude on a spinning Earth. The odds that the second one came at some other time in history is ZILCH. With even ONE MINUTE giving a longitudinal difference of about 75 km, and the two axes being essentially the same, I am led to conclude that they arrived together.

    E. YES, there IS a slight axes difference. That could be worked out as to timing (in a joint impact event) or misalignment of orbital paths. But I think they came in within a minute or two of each other. Thousands of years apart? Not a chance. Not in the same place like that.

    I hope that answered your questions, Jim.

  • Hi Jim

    If we imagine that there was a thick layer of ice on the ground, can we imagine that the impactor and the crater would be higher?


  • Sorry Jim, I was referring to the Saginaw carter……

  • jim coyle

    George; Do you have any contact with Herman Burchard? I would like for him to read the piece I found about MT Ashmore off the Australian coast. I was also wondering if he ever got any dating on the crater he located in the Spratly Islands. If he did and it was within the 34mya time frame we might be looking at a whopping global impact series.

  • Hermann Burchard

    at age 81 my interest is now in philosophy. Download my latest paper here (it’s free):

    About dates, you should ask a geologist they are good at that.

  • jim coyle

    Thanks Herman I’ll do that. I do want to thank you for getting me going on impact searches. It’s been a very rewarding endeavor.

  • George Howard

    Good lord, people. Stop the sidebar chatter and check out that new paper!

  • Cevin Q

    I second that George.