He argues that the evidence for catastrophic cosmic interactions with Earth has been building steadily, and what was once dismissed as outrageous is now supported by an expanding body of data. The resistance to these ideas, he suggests, stems from an institutional reluctance to entertain hypotheses that challenge established frameworks. But suppressing uncomfortable theories doesn't make them go away. It only delays the necessary recalibration of how we understand Earth's history and the forces that have shaped it. As more evidence accumulates year after year, the case for regular, sometimes devastating cosmic events becomes harder to ignore. The question is no longer whether these interactions happen, but how often and what their implications are for the future.