Here under subduction.
I thought plate tectonics was part of your model, now you're supporting your arguments with reference to someone who denies it?
About the
Journal of Scientific Exploration:
the journal was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. It has also published research articles, essays, and book reviews on many other topics, including the philosophy of science, pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, alternative medicine, the process of peer review for controversial topics,[3] astrology, consciousness, reincarnation, minority opinion scientific theories, and paranormal phenomena.
Now I'm not saying that anything published there is necessarily wrong, but I would say that you'd take pretty much everything else they'd publish with a grain of salt.
To test the accuracy of the paper I chose one claim at random, concerning Indian endemic fauna --- this is the first thing I tried, so if I am guilty of cherry-picking it is entirely by accident. Your author, Pratt, writes as follows:
There is, however, overwhelming geological and paleontological evidence that India has been an integral part of Asia since Proterozoic or earlier time (Chatterjee and Hotton, 1986; Ahmad, 1990; Saxena and Gupta, 1990; Meyerhoff et al., 1991). [...] If the long journey of India had actually occurred, it would have been an isolated island-continent for millions of years — sufficient time to have evolved a highly distinct endemic fauna. However, the Mesozoic and Tertiary faunas show no such endemism, but indicate instead that India lay very close to Asia throughout this period, and not to Australia and Antarctica (Chatterjee and Hotton, 1986).
Note the two references to Chatterjee and Hotton.
Now, the trouble with all this is that the opponents of the "isolated India" model do not claim that the Cretaceous Indian fauna resemble Asian fauna, but that they resemble African and Madagascan fauna, e.g.
Sahni:
At the generic and familial level there is a close correspondence between the Cretaceous vertebrates of peninsular India, Africa, and Madagascar.
Also
Briggs:
Instead, we find that almost all Indian taxa were possessed in common with other continents. As time went on, the northern relationships became stronger and the southern ones weaker. Most of the recent geophysical accounts show India not making contact with Eurasia until the early Miocene, but fossil materials show that this event must have taken place by the early Eocene.
That is, the early lack of endemicism must be due to close contact with
Gondwanan and not Laurasian fauna.
(A charitable view of Pratt is that he has got two arguments of the anti-isolationists mixed up: they claim a prolonged proximity to Africa and a subsequent early union with Asia as two
successive mechanisms for lack of endemicism.)
As a result of these observations on fauna, specifically those of Sahni quoted above, Chatterjee and Hotton
maintain, not that India was never detached from Asia, but that it spent much of the Cretaceous
not far from Africa.
And yet Pratt cites them as showing that "India has been an integral part of Asia"
since the Proterozoic --- when they never said so, when they never mentioned the position of Indian in the Proterozoic, and when the evidence which led them to their new model was the resemblance of early Cretaceous Indian fauna to Cretaceous African/Madagascan fauna, which is why they put India
closer to Africa than had previously been thought.
So Pratt is taking a minor disagreement about the precise route of drift and parlaying it into "overwhelming evidence" that India was attached to Asia since the Proterozoic when that is not in the least what the evidence suggests, nor the conclusion of the authors that he cites.
I have not the patience to look at all of Pratt's claims, but if this random sample is at all typical of his method then I don't think that they bear much weight.
™ Version 4.2
(1)