Debunked: Leaked US Navy Map, New Madrid, Submerged US

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This image purports to be a "Leaked US Navy Map" showing a plan to divide America up with an artificial quake at the New Madrid Fault line:

181219_10151420498081962_1198542663_n.jpg


The map has been passed around Facebook with the following description:
https://www.facebook.com/roya.ericksonjr/posts/672225519471039
[bunk](Leaked US Navy Map) This is what the continent of the USA will look like once the New Madrid Fault line is hit with a massive HAARP frequency impulse in the nearing future. Get informed and get ready. PS: Make sure to save, and get this out to as many people as possible, as they have tried censoring this photo in the past removing it from google images, and removing commentated youtube videos regarding it etc. I was very fortunate to have come across it again. [/bunk]

However, it's actually a map created by self-described "psychic" Gordon-Michael Scallion, to describe the US after an event he predicted that would start in the 1990s:



Scallion is famously inaccurate, an example prediction for 1993:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/profecias/esp_profecia01h4.htm#27. Gordon-Michael Scallion ~
Then in 1994, explaining where the map came from:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1194.cfm
In this 1994 article there's a simplified version of the map:


The map is entirely counter to possible geographical changes, requiring the submerging of 4,000 to 10,000 feet high ground in Nevada, while 100 feet high areas of Florida are untouched. The "great salt lake" (by Salt Lake City) is 4,000 feet above sea level. But aside from the map being vastly inaccurate, the problem here is this is a prediction for a sea level rise in 2012, and not some plan for an Earthquake in the future.

The map is being shown around on Facebook, and various blogs, like this one by "Zen Gardener"
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/is-new-madrid-mega-quake-being.html

Where the image is shown, along with the simplified version, except this time Gardener claims it's from the Navy.


Other people have made their own versions of Scallion's map, combining it with a map of nuclear power stations:
http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2013/11/uh-oh-fema-to-the-rescue-sinkholes-swallowing-southern-missouri-video-2444350.html


Again, this map is nothing official. It's just another version of Scallions maps dating back to 1979, illustrating predictions that he made for the 1990s, which never happened.
 
Last edited:

Aeribous

New Member
That map looks similar to ones associated with Edgar cayce. I love it when pretend scientist borrow from so called psychics.
 

David Coulter

Active Member
Not that strange from a geologist's perspective. The New Madrid rift and Northern Nevada rift have been trying to open for a long time. Not going to happen next year, but the maps are realistic 100k+ years down the road. Big continental shields like north America are giant insulators that eventually have to break somewhere due to heat flow from the mantle. Just the same as the great rift valley in Africa. Sorry to unbunk the debunk but these predictions are realistic, but only in geologic time.

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not that strange from a geologist's perspective. The New Madrid rift and Northern Nevada rift have been trying to open for a long time. Not going to happen next year, but the maps are realistic 100k+ years down the road. Big continental shields like north America are giant insulators that eventually have to break somewhere due to heat flow from the mantle. Just the same as the great rift valley in Africa. Sorry to unbunk the debunk but these predictions are realistic, but only in geologic time.

Yeah, but that's in 100 million years. Scallion was predicting this starting in 1993. And more science based prediction don't really look like his map:


http://www.earthgrind.com/earth-100-million-years-in-future/

 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Yeah, but that's in 100 million years.
And, even those visual representations (a 100 million years hence) did not take into account the tectonic movements of the continents, and the changing relationships that that entails.

It is commonplace for Humans to have difficulty wrapping their minds around times scales that far exceed the typical human lifespan, not to mention geological (and cosmological) time spans.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
Even if his map was completely accurate, the bunk is more in the mechanism by which it happens than the result. A hundred million years of inexorable continental drift is a lot different than a cataclysm of pole shifts, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes, and plasma from the Earth's core.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even if his map was completely accurate, the bunk is more in the mechanism by which it happens than the result. A hundred million years of inexorable continental drift is a lot different than a cataclysm of pole shifts, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes, and plasma from the Earth's core.
Yes, that level of dramatic change is going to require basically several months of magnitude 12.0 earthquakes, destroying all the large life on the planet.

Anyway. The main point I was debunking is that it's not a Navy map. The ridiculousness of the map in it's original context is just an illustrative detail.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oh, my!!!

Is THAT part of the fear, too??

If so....well, it must be a very small fraction of CTs, because any serious understanding of science dispels this immediately.
Are you politely suggesting a large fraction of CTs have a serious understanding of science?

I think you'll find that 99.9% of the population, CT or not, would be able to answer the question "is there plasma in the Earth's core".
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Gosh darn, I missed a "not" there.

Is there any plasma at the Earth's core? Maybe just a little? What's your pre-internet answer?
"Pre-Internet"?

As a schoolkid I learned about the hot center core of our planet....mostly molten iron (with other elements mixed in, because it's not homogenous).

The principle, as it was explained, is simple....gravity pulls most things that are heavier down. This is a simplistic explanation, since of course we observe variances in nature....but, overall, this is the concept of gravity, and then depth and pressure (deep inside a planet) and the resulting forces OF gravity that act....along with the friction, and resulting heat, of OTHER forces that can act upon a planet due to outside gravitational influences.

NOW....this is ALL theoretical, I grant....but there are thousands upon thousands of very learned experts who devote their lives and intellectual careers to these sorts of studies, so I always bow to their knowledge, and attempt to learn from them.

EDIT: This video may not be quite "on topic", but if one wished to subscribe to this woman's YT Channel, one can learn a LOT about geology:


(THAT ^^^ was part 2). Here is part 1:



Apologies in advance....I am a huge fan of "WildwoodClaire1" on YT, so forgive my promotion here of her videos.

....there are gems of truth, though, in the videos she puts such effort into making, and then posting.....
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Active Member
My point is that the map that started this thread is actually geologically realistic if the two documented rifts in North America actuality became active. When and if they become active is a matter of geologic debate, there are a lot of failed rifts in the geologic record. The Northern Nevada rift is dead for now but the mid-continent/New Madrid rift has been active in historical times. But realistically we are talking about geologic time scales. I have to disagree with Mick by about two orders of magnitude, a million years could create the rifting needed to produce what is shown in the map. Not like it really matters to us as the continental changes will be so slow as to be imperceptible.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Except for the inner bit (760 mile radius), which appears to be solid. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

The inner structure of the Earth was fascinating to me as a kid. I doubt it was a common interest though.
THIS is why the science of the internal structure of "rocky" planets, such as the one we live on, is so fascinating.

It (this science) also involves studying OTHER "rocky" planets (examples in our Solar System are Mercury, Venus and Mars) in order to get a further grasp of the theoretical concepts.

....hence....science....and the term "theory".

Sidebar: not to seem condescending, but many use the word "theory" in the English language vernacular to mean "guess". It is not.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sidebar: not to seem condescending, but many use the word "theory" in the English language vernacular to mean "guess". It is not.
It's an accepted usage:

OED:
Usage defines meaning.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
It's an accepted usage:

OED:
Usage defines meaning.
I agree, in terms of the "accepted usage" of the word theory.

I just wish that MORE people could be educated to realize that "hypothesis" is not equal to "theory".

Because, an actual "theory" in the pure scientific sense is NOT a "conjecture", nor a "hypothesis"....it is an amalgam of solid, eventual and repeatable FACTS that...all point toward the conclusion that (admittedly) is postulated by a particular theory....even IF said theory is not (yet) fully defined.

By "fully defined", anyone who understands the concept knows that in MOST science, there are usually some "open-ended" questions....but when an aspect of science is repeatable, even if not "fully" explained, then there is no doubt as to its veracity.

Cliche' is gravity. WE ALL KNOW that gravity exists, we even have Newtons' "3 Laws"....
BUT!!! Gravity is still a "theory" because....as yet, cosmologists and physicists
HAVE NOT YET FULLY EXPLAINED IT, to everyone's satisfaction.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree, in terms of the "accepted usage" of the word theory.

I just wish that MORE people could be educated to realize that "hypothesis" is not equal to "theory".
My theory is that it actually is equal, in the common tongue, so complaining about it is just a distraction.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
It'd be good to find the first instance of it, bit hard as the idea seems to have been around for a while and constantly repeated. Found this interesting post on Snopes forum referring to this map.


 

Aeribous

New Member
"Pre-Internet"?

As a schoolkid I learned about the hot center core of our planet....mostly molten iron (with other elements mixed in, because it's not homogenous).

The principle, as it was explained, is simple....gravity pulls most things that are heavier down. This is a simplistic explanation, since of course we observe variances in nature....but, overall, this is the concept of gravity, and then depth and pressure (deep inside a planet) and the resulting forces OF gravity that act....along with the friction, and resulting heat, of OTHER forces that can act upon a planet due to outside gravitational influences.

NOW....this is ALL theoretical, I grant....but there are thousands upon thousands of very learned experts who devote their lives and intellectual careers to these sorts of studies, so I always bow to their knowledge, and attempt to learn from them.

EDIT: This video may not be quite "on topic", but if one wished to subscribe to this woman's YT Channel, one can learn a LOT about geology:


(THAT ^^^ was part 2). Here is part 1:



Apologies in advance....I am a huge fan of "WildwoodClaire1" on YT, so forgive my promotion here of her videos.

....there are gems of truth, though, in the videos she puts such effort into making, and then posting.....
I love Claire, she is the take no bs grandma I wish I had.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member
You know, less Arkansas might not be a bad thing, especially if the bit that's left has beaches. Hell, I might even go back for a visit - and that's something I'd never have predicted after my first and only pass through that cultural wasteland. Still, it did make Texas look very good indeed.
 

NIghthauk

New Member
Wow, some of these show Atlanta (my home town) having a coastline. Marthasville was always good for a razing or two.....
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
One thing often overlooked with tectonic movement and/or sudden catastrophic disaster (like the unlikely one hyperboled in the OP) is ocean currents. We don't need continents smashing into each other to change them and changing them can spell doom (or be a welcome change, who knows) for life on Earth. How far does North America need to move towards Asia before the currents change? Probably sooner than 100 million years. If California did suddenly fall into the ocean tomorrow :rolleyes: then that could change the currents as well.

If it does fall into the Ocean tomorrow, I'm moving to Arizona Bay and start giving swimming lessons!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Posting a Tool video deserves the winner medal.
Man....I thought I was "up" on some latest social fads, but....I am just lost.....

EDIT: Sorry, the music does not appeal to me, and the images in the first few minutes are very disturbing....BUT, I do know who Bill Hicks was!! (That's something...at least...).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
This map was also circulated by idahopicker last year. He seems to have sort of vanished. He fled on a druck driving charge in addition to child support.
 
Top