Sounds right, that antipodal idea was rejected, in part, because they aren’t exactly opposite.
Seems a reasonable theory to me that a big impact would set off volcanic eruptions—especially when you hear the geologists talk about an earth quake in one part of the globe tends to ring the crust like a bell and thereby set off earthquakes in other parts of crustal plates.
It wasn’t clear to me. Were you guys arguing that impacts and eruptions were discreet events or that its reasonable that there might be a cause and effect in the case of the big impacts.