There is a persuasive alternative to the Pangea theory.

>you can't be serious right? You said there were zero citations, then asked if I was "blind or coping." I showed you a citation and said "I'll ask you the same." You asked what I'd ask, so I explained what I was asking: *Isn't it the case, where this document is filled with citations, yet you claim there are none, that it is* ***you*** *who is either blind or coping?* These citations may not be to your liking, and may not be indexed, but I've always been able to find what he's references. You must not have done anything more than notice the lack of footnotes. ​ >I assume you did read the 114-page article and see nothing wrong with it? Never assume. I find it glib and unprofessional in parts, but I don't blame someone like Maxlow for becoming bitter over the years. I've also not read all of it. This is just one guy's work on the topic, and I've got a watershed theory to promote. ​ >Have you ever read an actual scientific journal? Sure. This is not meant to be an academic journal article. It's a long, educational article for the general public, and you're losing this argument by having conflated the two. If it didn't have references, I wouldn't promote it. He relies primarily on the 1990 UNESCO map. Neal Adams' videos rely on the NOAA seafloor map.