harleyborgais wrote:This sits says teeth from a city 120ft deep were dated 9,500 years old:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8965/

As an example here Harley - can you find the source for these claims in that article?

Look:

Consider one anthropological hypothesis....

Weasel words - which 'anthropological hypothesis'?

harleyborgais wrote:that concedes the possibility of a prehistoric humanity enjoying a high degree of technological development.

So ambiguous as to not even allow an open-minded researcher to go and look up what hypothesis this might be.

harleyborgais wrote:Some evidence suggests that ancient people appear to have crafted a technology significantly more advanced than what we might imagine.

Weasel words: what evidence? What does 'significantly more advanced than we might imagine' actually mean?

harleyborgais wrote:Much of the support for this idea comes from the discovery of dozens of ancient cities submerged beneath the oceans across the entire planet.

Nonsense, no submerged settlements required high technology; they are entirely consistent with the archaeological sites found on dry land.

harleyborgais wrote:
I know what you mean about digging through, that is the internet though.
------------------------
The 30,000 was from a Documentary on a prime channel, maybe discovery or history or something like that.
I do not use TV, only internet, and mostly only for information, so I was lucky to catch part of it.

So far, like I said, I cannot find the source, but I did see them.

If you read what I said, I do not remotely accuse you of misrepresenting them - I am not remotely skeptical of you having seen them; I know I've seen utter pap presented as almost fact in modern 'documentaries', where there's precisely zero sourcing or professional corroboration of evidence. Nearly all these 'documentaries' also set up the 'establishment' as being opposed to these claims... well, there's a bloody good reason for that!

harleyborgais wrote:
It seems something happened and the link disappeared, must have pressed something like ctrl Z, like I just did thinking about it. These things happen because my computer cannot keep up with me much of the time. Sorry.
21,000 years old...
http://www.funwadi.com/forum/21000yrs-o ... 75362.html
23,000...
http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/ ... vedic.html

Harley; I do not dispute that some crackpot on the internet said '21,000' years old, but I am talking about the credibility of such sites. Do you believe it just because it's written on the internet?

Go and look at those 2 sites again.

Can you point out where the source of their claims are? No, because they don't provide sources, they just make assertions. They could just as easily say that these cities are 14 billion years old and are the homes of the angels... would you then believe that?

It's one thing to keep an open-mind, and another to permit yourself to uncritically accept any old claim just because someone said it.

harleyborgais wrote:
I guess you have to watch the videos, maybe they are bad references, but I posted them because I am going through dozens of sites, trying to find the source of that 30,000 year old one from the documentary, and have to keep track of things as I go.

I did watch the videos... well, I watched the reasonable one. Do you think I just looked at your citation and ignored it? No, of course I watched it. The giants one was such vapid pap that I turned it off within 20 seconds or so - it has zero credibility as you'd be aware if you could develop your critical thinking skills. It's not necessary to have a university education to learn about the world, but higher and further education give you the tool sets to detect bias and to question bald assertions.

harleyborgais wrote:There are already bookmarks off the screen the desktop is filling, the latest folder has hundreds of references in it.....

Quality is far more important than quantity.

harleyborgais wrote:No need to be offensive when some turn out to be poor sources. A human just cannot read every word of every source they check, especially with a goal this expansive. Limits must be chosen carefully. And no one is perfect.

Where was I offensive to you? I was offensive to these shitty sites spewing naive vacuous bollocks as if it was fact. Actually, if you read again you can see I am trying to cajole you into some critical consideration of the absurd biases at play. The reason I get annoyed with sites like that is that if scams people like you, who are genuinely trying to find out about the world they live in but don't necessarily have the knowledge or tools to discern fact from guff.

You say the nazi bell is a wacky idea, not worthy of a response...

Just respond to what your knowledgeable on, you don't have to respond to everything. I am the only one here really expected to do that.

You say that the tv documentaries are unreliable, they exaggerate, that I should go to the source...

That is what I have been trying to do, what I have been saying, and why I have been posting so much on that topic.
So I can find that source. I have said this, many times now. I wish I could remember the title, but I missed it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ion_03.gif

Hard to say at this time if this model can accept the input of such a meteor impact as described above.

But already having much of the materials of life here, 1 billion years before the oldest evidence of life (3.4 billion years ago), would be a rather significant change I think. That does not make it wrong however, only difficult to assess.

Since it is not a new theory, perhaps these issues have been addressed already.

The Bible mentions that there were plants before the stars, moon, and sun were set into their current orbits.
The current orbits must be the result of momentum from an area of dust, flattening out into a plane or accretion disk around the newly fused sun...
The heavier elements don't seem to have moved out as far as the lighter ones, that is probably since the sun started pushing it out there with the radiation and particle wind. The rock and water solidifies, was all spinning relatively uniformly, but as the pieces got larger and larger their momentums collided and trajectories/orbits and rotations changed.

After looking at the images of the Atlantic and the pacific, and comparing them in relation on the 3D globe...
http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/Cent ... or_800.jpg

Considering the moon always shows us the same side, the continents moving away from the Atlantic, and the oldest rock solidified in Australia a little over 4.2 billion years ago, that the moon has the same makeup as Earth, (still need to check a model of the moons orbit, and the evidence for Pangaea)...

It seems that the Atlantic ocean is the Meteor crater for a Large meteor (probably near the size of the moon), struck the Earth a little over 4 billion years ago, creating the continents and the Atlantic, with its center peak and fault line...

It was angled towards Asia, which is why there are larger continents there, and why on the other side of the planet the liquified minerals (earth was nearly entirely turned to liquified rock), formed a wave-wall structure, just off the east coast of asia/china/japan.

It probably had an angle more towards the north east, considering the displacement of land.

whatever contours and tectonics or continents had developed were nearly eradicated, especially on the other side, where everything was basically liquified and mixed, where the ultra-super-mega-tsunami waves met, opposite the planet from impact site.

The roughness of the Atlantic is because of the currents caused by the vertical contours above and below, moving warm water and air north (and south in some places), creating currents, which push up on the mountains under water, creating rough seas.

The other side was blended and flattened for the most part, and is Pacified/Pacific.

A review of the moons orbit should then put it on an angle, off set from our equator by perhaps 15-25 degrees towards the north east, from the Atlantics central peak, towards Russia roughly. Then the earth has its rotation, and revolution, its elliptic, which rotates too, and other motions relative to the sun, Venus, and mars, so those all effect the ice age, warm age, and the angle of the moons orbit. The orbital history of the moon could support or disprove this moon origin/Atlantic & continents origin theory.

So the elevation of the peak in the Atlantic is equal to the depths between the UK and Africa. Still not sure just how deep though. Expecting about 100-200 ft or a little more, maybe several hundred feet under sea level counting massive erosion from the rough seas, unless it is very hard rock.

harleyborgais wrote:You say the nazi bell is a wacky idea, not worthy of a response...

Just respond to what your knowledgeable on, you don't have to respond to everything. I am the only one here really expected to do that.

Harley, you know very well that I have unreservedly stated that I do not have the expertise in Physics necessary to deal with your claims, and as such, I haven't commented on them.

However, I am perfectly within my expertise, just as a thinking human being, to say that idea is whacky, absolute fucking drivel. Do you know where the source of it comes from? A polish guy writing in 2003.... what's his source? No one knows. Where's the evidence? There is none.

Put two and two together Harley instead of just accepting anything that takes your fancy; treat knowledge like you'd treat the claims of a used car salesman - look under the hood and kick the tyres before buying it.

harleyborgais wrote:You say that the tv documentaries are unreliable, they exaggerate, that I should go to the source...

That is what I have been trying to do, what I have been saying, and why I have been posting so much on that topic.
So I can find that source. I have said this, many times now. I wish I could remember the title, but I missed it.

You still don't seem to be getting what I am saying: the 'source' for your claim is a documentary. I don't dispute that whatsoever. What I am disputing is that the documentary's claim is true. Even if you found the title, that wouldn't change the substance of my point here. I dispute it because this IS my area of expertise. I spent 4 (5 including my first 1st year where I later changed courses) years at a top educational institution learning about the early history of humanity. These claims you link to on trash websites and in 'documentaries' would completely rock the archaeological and anthropological world; experts would be all over it, and it would soon be popular knowledge, and so what if it disproved all previous claims - that's precisely what science is; provisional knowledge ready to be overturned should new evidence come to light. Why are these claims not widely reported? Why don't experts know of the existence of cities 20,000-30,000 years ago? If experts don't know, then where did this knowledge actually come from? It's only experts who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to relevant studies who would be able to corroborate these claims... why does it not happen like that?

It's simple: the people who have fed you this information are lying. That's it. Nothing more spectacular than good old fashioned gulling of the gullible. As I said, you can develop the tool kit to ascertain this yourself; the first step is to stop taking claims at face value. The next is to put in deep research, not mass accumulation of superficial and vacuous anecdotes and assertions. It's no good just dropping them on the table here and having others do your work for you, because it's not helping you develop that tool kit, and you're just exchanging one authority for another, allbeit one that's prepared to put hard evidence in front of you.

You say above "Just respond to what your knowledgeable on..... I am the only one here really expected to do that.[/quote]

The problem is that you are making claims across a massive spectrum of expertise. If you have knowledge in any of these areas, it must at best be extremely superficial. It's very difficult to maintain a current and up to date knowledge of just one area of study closely following new papers month by month. That your 'focus' crosses all areas of study indicates that your knowledge is only superficial in these areas, which is why you are easily mislead by uncritically accepting transparently nonsense sources. Why not focus down and learn about the area you're most interested in? So what if it takes you the rest of your life to build your hypothesis of everything; it will at least have a strong foundation if you have done the necessary research to be making these claims.

I don't and won't claim expertise in chemistry and physics, because it would be obvious to anyone in those fields that I don't actually know what I'm talking about, and my self-confidence in making assertions would be misplaced.

You want help here... I am trying to help you but with the age old adage: you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a life time. I am trying to suggest that you start inspecting your intellectual tool kit to see where you can develop it. Don't misunderstand, we all need to do so - it's an on-going process. But until you have developed a skeptical approach to knowledge, I strongly recommend that you consider the quality and credibility of your sources as your first step.

harleyborgais wrote:Sovereign,

Not sure if you have seen it all, but we have done the math for the Meteor impact 65mya, and it put water into the correct elevation for sure.

Does anyone dispute this much of it?

I wasn't asking that, I was asking about the canopy in orbit.

harleyborgais wrote:So what the water would do up there is the key point remaining.

HERES THE CATCH...Everyone has a different idea of what would happen, but no one can prove it so far.

Because it didn't and can't happen.

harleyborgais wrote:I am working on it, just copied the triple point chart for water from wiki and added the values missing from the triple point and higher critical point. (really wish I could upload images instead of only link them)
---------------------

Now,
The Highest Lenticular clouds reach about 53 miles high, and the lowest orbit is about 100 miles, up to 22,000 miles for Geosynchronous orbits.

The triple point is freezing temp (32F) and AT 0.006 times pressure at sea level.
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math ... source.htm

The elevation for that Pressure is around 150,000 ft/5,280= 28.4 miles high.
---Can someone verify this please?---------

That suggests that half way to the lenticular clouds water cannot be liquid, and certainly not in orbit....
BUT IS THAT RIGHT?

This has no bearing since the canopy is in orbit and not in the atmosphere so bringing up these clouds is pointless. In orbit, there is no atmosphere and therefore no atmospheric pressure.

harleyborgais wrote:Now for temp... The top of mt everest fluctuates from at least 131F to -90F.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_o ... _continent

So in the orbital and lenticular cloud ranges water is back and forth between gas and solid, but never water.
---------------------------

Once again, you're using the wrong numbers. Clouds have nothing to do with the canopy as the canopy is in orbit and the numbers you should be using are the recorded numbers of the surface temp of the space shuttle when is is sun side and dark side. You'll see the range is much greater than what's been recorded on the top of mount Everest.

harleyborgais wrote:So, for the polar orbit...

If gravity and tangent velocity are really the only things to orbit, then a polar orbit is not different from one around the equator, except that is more elliptical (less circular).
-------------------
Now for trajectory....

The least likely angles of impact are obviously the extreme angles of 90 and 0 degrees. The most likely is in between, near or at 45 degrees. I referenced a physics modeling program from purdue university on that angle and was criticized.

Who would you rather trust to give you that number other than someone who put all that time into analyzing the data needed to create such a program to model meteor impacts?

All fine and dandy but we're not talking about meteor impacts. We're talking about orbital paths of the individual water molecules in this continuous canopy in orbit around the Earth that somehow manage to stay in orbit without running into each other and maintaining orbital velocity without the required path and speed. The numbers you quoted are meaningless.

harleyborgais wrote:-----------------
I did watch the geology videos, I did message the lady, and her response was simply no. At the least I was expecting some reference of insight, but she did not want to bother. I asked about what archaeological evidence there is for 4,400 years ago, if there was any evidence of a flood, and she just said no.
That response has no real value just as my claims alone do not either. Only the evidence matters, and that is what I was looking for, but she did not want to help
---------

Because there was no evidence for a flood 4,400 years ago. If you watched her videos, they talk about that in detail. She doesn't come out in all her videos and say it but she addresses the topic very thoroughly. There is no evidence anywhere that there was a flood like you mentioned. There is no reference of insight. We know what happened 4,400 years ago due to archaeology and geology and you aren't realizing that.

harleyborgais wrote:There seems to be no model of the behavior of space in orbit, but no one can dispute the facts that several meteor impacts (probably far more than 10 that we can find) have ejected water and material into orbit. So why has that never been modeled?

There is the issue of tektites, which formed from impacts and are sent into orbit, I found one.
There is debate on whether that is how they form, but it seems the simplest answer to fit the evidence, and there is no better explanation.

We aren't talking about how the water got in orbit. We're talking about the canopy in orbit.

harleyborgais wrote:----------- The mechanism ------------------

So, the water did go into orbit, but did it stay?
The water will go up and be steam then. It will freeze along the way when it cools to 32F. Above the 28 miles calculated above it will go from solid to gas at 32F.

So it will occasionally sublimate to gas if it is orbiting, when the sun directly strikes it.
When it does that the molecules will push apart and space out as much as they can.

Also the larger chunks will collide and break up. Space junk is mostly small bits thanks to that.

So any water that does attain orbital trajectory will become tiny solid particles and they will spread out.

We all know that these collisions make things fall, but only some of it falls.

Still working on the rest, this just moved me a tiny bit closer to a scientific conclusion, which no one else here has made yet.

You are all sure this is not possible, saying I have not proved it, but I am doing it bit-by-bit, and no one else can disprove it so far, scientifically, with objective truths, observable facts.

-------------------------------
Additional notes,
When the H2O molecules go from solid to gas, they will spread, but they will not lose their orbital momentum because of that.
Remember there is not much atmosphere up there to provide resistance.

"The Kármán line lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.[2] This " wiki

So the lenticular clouds almost reach the edge of the atmosphere, and there is basically no atmosphere in orbit.

So where are the remaining faults in this theory?
Why [in fact] would the water NOT stay in orbit?
(I Keep asking this, but no one can directly prove why not, and I am proving why so bit by bit).

The canopy you are claiming is in orbit and not in the atmosphere. It is not a cloud formation either so the use of clouds in atmospheric conditions is useless to our discussion. When gas is exposed to non-atmospheric space, it dissipates never to be recovered again. You will have molecules fall back to Earth but a good number of them will go out into the vacuum. When your canopy sublimates, that vapor is riding out on the solar wind to the end of the solar system. It's not coming back to reform the canopy because it's gone.

On orbital velocity. Get a ball and draw a line around it. That's an orbit. Draw another one. Then draw another one. They should be intersecting. Now the canopy is continuous meaning that there is no breaks anywhere between the molecules. If that's the case, how do they keep from colliding?

Oh and here is the first video of an entire series you should watch. I should add, the Grand Canyon video was about the flood and although it didn't say why there were fossils on mountains, it did say why the Grand Canyon is not evidence for the flood, which never happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4G ... ideo_title

Some more links for you

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/project ... orbit.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm Scroll down to temperatures in space.

harleyborgais wrote:One note, gravitational time dilation...
Means that the time it takes the light to go to earth and back takes longer, according to the GPS correction of moving the satellite clock back.

So if there are ten peaks, and it takes longer to traverse the time, then the peaks are further away, and the light is red shifted.

This doesn't work.

If there are ten gravitating bodies there will be 10 sets of time dilation going on which may or may not cancel. The thing is we are not measuring time dilation. We are measuring the redshift which is a different property. The photon will be red and blue shifted by each of the 10 bodies by the same amount in each case thus causing no net red/blueshift since the photon that approaches an intervening body also goes away from it on its journey.

So there is no apparent connection between distance of QSOs to nearby galaxies, and their redshift.

Do basically have that right?

Some QSOs have a 'host' galaxy that is observable. What Arp claims is that galaxies that appear close on the sky but which have different redshifts are associated with the QSO that appears near them. This is not the case for the reasons already mentioned. Arp claims that there are too many that look associated for it to be a mere chance line of sight effect. The papers point out he is doing his statistics wrong and its well within the bounds of probability for the numbers of QSOs that appear close but are not really to appear in surveys.

So, Halton specifies connecting bridges that can be seen with the right wavelength.

He does claim that but this is yet another claim that fails. The reason is that the supposed connecting bridges can be seen with many instruments to not actually connect. (The majority can be seen to pass behind the foreground objects) Again their spectra show differing amounts of intervening material and thus differing distances and no connection.

Its quite sad really. Arp did some good work back in the 60s or so but since then he has become obssessed with the idea of intrinsic redshift and maintains it in the face of overwhelming evidence refuting his ideas directly.

harleyborgais wrote:After looking at the images of the Atlantic and the pacific, and comparing them in relation on the 3D globe...
http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/Cent ... or_800.jpg

It seems that the Atlantic ocean is the Meteor crater for a Large meteor (probably near the size of the moon), struck the Earth a little over 4 billion years ago, creating the continents and the Atlantic, with its center peak and fault line...

Wrong. The mid Atlantic ridge is a spreading centre and the rate of spreading has been directly measured. Also the rocks get progressively older as you move East and West of the ridge. The Atlantic didn't even exist prior to 130 million years ago. It's fine to come up with ideas but it is always a good idea to check them against reality before making silly assertions.

I will respond to more posts at a later time, right now I am posting a specific mathematical test of my theory....

Relating to the "Faraday Effect"-the rotation of angle of polarization of light passing through a magnetic field...


Consider a light wave passing through a magnetic field, into the South pole and out of the North pole, and above the magnet from observers perspective.

(I have not checked if this theory has been devised before, or if the measurements exist, but will do so in the following days)

--------First to be sure we agree on some basics .... -------------
The Energy that is a Light wave has a North and South Magnetic polarity as well as a Negative and Positive Electrical polarity, and these both exist at the same time, at 90-degrees to each other, and to the direction the light is moving.
A particle is deflected to the right if negatively charged and moving into/through a North Pole (Pointing upwards and at 90-degrees to the particles trajectory).
When the current in a wire coil travels Counter-Clock-Wise from the observers perspective, there is a north pole pointing towards the observer.
------------------------------------------------ Sorry if it is still unclear, I will make an image to show better, but only a good 3D moving image (with colored transparent textures) will really clarify it. There will be a graph too, so this theory can be compared to observation exactly according to proportions/ratios etc..

So, here is the prediction (It covers the four different relative angles)...

0) When light passes through a magnetic field (into South and out or North, and above the magnet), if the Negative pole is already pointing to the right (Clockwise to the magnet), there will be Zero rotation, No Faraday Effect at all.

90) If the light passes through the magnetic field (same, south to north, and above magnet), with the negative pole pointing in toward center of magnet, (Positive pointing outward), then the Maximum Rotation of Polarization will occur, and it will rotate in the Counter-Clock-Wise direction.

---There will be an exponential relation for angles between, starting at zero, climbing quickly at first, and peaking at 90-degrees.---

180) If the light passes reverse from the first example, with the Negative pole pointing left, or CCW to the magnet, there will be a Different effect. There will be no rotation, but a diminishing of the intensity of the light, a cancellation of the energy.

----The angles between 90 and 270 will have a mix increased rotation nearer to 90 and 270, mixed with decreased intensity which is greatest at 180 degrees. ----

270) When the light passes through the magnetic field reverse of the second example, with the Negative pole of the light pointing out away from the magnet, (positive pointing towards center of magnet), then there will also be a maximum Faraday effect, with the rotation being in the Clock-Wise Direction (opposite the second example).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I welcome any data that agrees with or contradicts these predictions, and of course will start researching if any one else has explained the Faraday Effect, or if these properties have even been measured yet.

[To specify what Data: the degree of rotation, of the angle of polarization of a light wave, in relation to the angle the light entered, versus the angle it left the same magnetic field.]

harleyborgais wrote:
Now I welcome any data that agrees with or contradicts these predictions, and of course will start researching if any one else has explained the Faraday Effect, or if these properties have even been measured yet.

[To specify what Data: the degree of rotation, of the angle of polarization of a light wave, in relation to the angle the light entered, versus the angle it left the same magnetic field.]

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

Then use the sources at the end of the article, and look for textbooks on electromagnetism. All the explanations and data you'll find.

Finally I found an example of the precise graph that represents a field of force like gravity or magnetism.

Now I just need the darn equation for this. It seems like I need to use two, but I know there is one that will do it.

The description says it returns to zero, but if that was generated by an equation, It looks like the correct type of exponential which never actually reaches zero.

--------------------
And to metatrons ridiculous statement above...

There is a very good chance that someone has already done enough experiments to prove or disprove this idea.
It would be foolish for me to do the elaborate work myself when I can just look for it.
So far every experiment I have needed has been done, or is well beyond what I could do myself.
A couple I really need is the production of Hydrogen from energy, and the production of Dark Matter or a tiny Black Hole in a lab.
Other desirable experiments include: the moving of an object with wireless energy transmission, and production of a gravitational field (or magnetic, or electrostatic, or basic pressure or temperature).
I am working on these. So far the first four attempts to make a good clean sinewave generator that can power my tesla coil have failed. It has to be very high voltage (max possible) and frequency (50Khz-100Khz).

I expect to find it in the near future. Here is what IT needs to be...


Tests of the angle of polarized light as it passes through a magnetic field....
Where the exact angle of polarization of the light entering the magnetic field is compared to the angle after exiting said field.

The trick is measuring the precise angle, and the effect is very tiny, so very strong magnet helps.
--------------------

I should also point out that I have suggested several experiments in this thread to test my theories, but so far I have not been able to perform any, and most would not be possible for me alone to accomplish anyways.

Did you get the wrong image because the graph has nothing to do with gravity or magnetism.

The image posted is from this page:
http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html
Its related to musical tuning and is a page of a researcher in the electrical and computer engineering department of the University of Wisconsin-Madison

HARLEY! We had a nice little chat about actually reading through your sources and fact-checking them! Did it just go in one ear and out the other!?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Hang on...

First event... that happens countless times every second?

How the flying fuck does that work, then?

That sounds like a rather poetic explanation of randomness in quantum mechanics (that is, things in quantum mechanics that essentially don't happen for any reason, unlike in classical physics). That's maybe the *least* mistaken notion to all this guy is writing.

Should i think of QM as being a kind of "philosophical" view of Physics?

Paul.

Jumbo wrote:Did you get the wrong image because the graph has nothing to do with gravity or magnetism.

The image posted is from this page:
http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html
Its related to musical tuning and is a page of a researcher in the electrical and computer engineering department of the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Absolutely brilliant

pfrankinstein wrote:Should i think of QM as being a kind of "philosophical" view of Physics?

No, you should think of the various formulations of QM as being philosophical views of the behaviour of quantum entities.

These references are relevant for the discussion of the meteor impact 65 million years ago...

Some discussion of the theories, and why none are accepted as fact yet...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

And an image showing soil layers of material from several points in NE Mexico leading up to the KT boundary...
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/keller/fig13.jpg

It seems like all elements (in a certain portion of ejecta) were totally vaporized, to condense into droplets of solid matter.
They spread out towards the NNW overtime, but well behind the clay and plants destroyed, mixed, and displaced some distance from the impact. On top of all this mixed plant-mud, there is the solidified droplets (higher the further you go from the gulf), and on top of all that there is the sandstone. Sand forms under clay (with the gravel) when rivers dry up.

The water would have formed quite a spectacular tsunami of mud, which would form a crater like shape far larger than the present crater. Of course, it would have eroded quickly, and then the Ferns took advantage and flourished after.

There may be enough evidence now to prove it absolutely, or has it been and this Berkeley page is just not up to date?