Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 90 of 90

Thread: The Carolina Bays are conic sections

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,070
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Alignment does not necessarily specify direction. It very well could be aligned perpendicularly to the wind.
    Besides, I find it hard to believe that two experts can be 90 degrees off from the apparent major axis, or 90 degrees off of wind direction.
    Yep. The quote from Melosh's book comes from the last page of the book, in the thermokarst section. No mention of the bays (according to the index) in the eolian section.

    Melosh is probably just referring to the same thing that Brooks, Taylor, and Ivestor are, not trying to contradict them.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    95
    I just came across a paper presented at the May 2015 meeting of the GSA. It has a very interesting chart that shows that the axial orientation of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska Rainwater Basins can be predicted with a single equation that uses a convergence point at Latitude 43.68, Longitude -83.82. The chart is based on analysis of the orientation of 45,000 bays, so it appears fairly robust. Here is the link:
    https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2015NC/we...per254858.html

    This is slide 27 from the presentation:
    carolina-bay-orientation.jpg

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,668
    After some hunting I found this:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...chigan_A_Thumb

    With some beautiful photograps.

    EDIT: You'll probably have to click on the "Full Text" button. Eventually it does give up the full paper. Ceretainly a pleasant change from endless paywalls.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2015-Sep-15 at 07:51 PM. Reason: clarification
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    It would appear we are straying out of the bounds set in post #2:
    And where is this "straying"?

    Please explain.

    rmfr
    Difference between a "best" friend and a good friend: A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail. A Best friend will be in jail with you saying, "Dude, we screwed up."

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    That's because the bays are not so geological as geomorphological. And there have been extensive studies of the bays and their age, origins and how they might be changing. The orientations seem to correlate with prevailing wind patterns (or reconstructed wind patterns during and just after the last glaciation).
    And where are your links for this information. I found some. How come you cannot list them?

    rmfr
    Difference between a "best" friend and a good friend: A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail. A Best friend will be in jail with you saying, "Dude, we screwed up."

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I think that the range of ages of the Carolina Bays ("predating the end of the Pleistocene by ten of thousands to over a hundred thousand years") is the nail in the coffin of an impact event creating them.
    And where did this idea come from? Where is your data backing this up?

    Dating the soils in the Carolina Bays has absolutely NO relevance on WHEN or HOW they were formed. Dating the soils only tells you the date when the soils were first formed and laid down after the formation of the Appalachian Mountains when there was a subduction zone that formed them two billion years ago and the later erosion of them. Even using OSL will not tell you WHEN or HOW they were formed, only how long ago light was shining on the soils. And I still have my doubts about OSL. Even got to try OSL while at a university (y'all ain't privy as to which one). It is still not a PROVEN technology. However, there are far too many established scientists who swear by it.

    One must remember that aging something like the Carolina Bays is only determining when the soils were first formed as rock during the initial formation of the Appalachians and the erosion process began that has worn them down some 2400 to 2800 meters. There is nothing currently known to man that can properly determine the age of the Carolina Bays. We can only hypothesize. And most hypotheses (not theories) I have seen to explain the formation of the Carolina Bays as being aeolian, fluvial, and/or karst have failed miserably. There are far too many other formations formed by aeolian, fluvial, and karst influences. AND NONE OF THEM ARE SO PERFECTLY ELLIPTICAL. ONLY impacts with a very low angle can form such. Especially impacts that are not meteorically or cometly ballistic (i.e. - distal ejecta). Investigate it for yourselves. Prove you are scientists and prove the impact hypothesis false. You shall never be able to do so for me and the studies I have had throughout high school, colleges, and universities.

    Since I have also served in the military and watched artillery bombardment videos, the only explanation I find viable is by the SECONDARY impacts due to distal ejecta from a primary impactor. Go to youtube and search for artillery bombardment videos, especially ground impacts and not building impacts (cause I ain't gonna do the work for you). Notice how much "distal ejecta" is launched from those impacts. Meteor and comet impacts can also create explosions and distal ejecta.

    It seems as if all you supposed "scientists" here require someone to time travel and film the impact and its effects to get the point through your steel reinforced concrete skulls.

    There are NO aeolian, fluvial, and/or karst influences in the formation of Carolina Bays. They are much too perfectly elliptical to have been formed by such influences. Aeolian, fluvial, and karst influences produce either an almost perfect circle, or a shape that is extremely ragged and looking like the extremely ragged shapes produced in calderic explosions and formations. All I need say about this is REALLY LOOK at the Alaskan and Siberian puddles formed by melting of ice. NOT ONE HAS AN ALMOST PERFECT ELLIPTICAL SHAPE. They are either circular, or they look like the Lochs of Scotland (my homeland (I am Highlander.)).

    For all my life I have always said the Carolina Bays were formed by either a shotgun meteor/comet blast or by the secondary impacts of the debris thrown up (distal ejecta) from the primary impact. And I have had to deal with hardheads like the persons on these forum boards. I have yet to see any "scientist" say anything scientific about this matter on either this thread or the ATM thread.

    The only thing I have read by others on these forum boards is bunch of horse hoowhee questions. AND NOT ONE IS BACKED UP WITH ANY KIND OF DATA, OR LINKS TO THAT DATA, AS TO WHERE YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

    I am a scientist. Specifically a GIS Field Specialist with studies mainly focused in geology and geomorphology. I have also studied Celestial Mechanics, Orbital Mechanics, and Impact Mechanics (meteors, comets, ballistic bullets). And I say the Carolina Bays were formed by the secondary impacts from the distal ejecta caused by a primary impact on glaciofields that existed during one of the MANY icehouse Earth periods that has existed in the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth. And I will continually be shot down by the many dummies who refuse to believe that chunks of ice impacting on a noncontiguous sandy surface that has been liquefied (soil liquefaction) by seismic waves will leave ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of the impactor. The impactor simply melts, adding water to the soil, further aiding soil viscous relaxation to fill the hole.

    Believe what you want. If you cannot believe the impact theories causing the formation of the Carolina Bays, then so be it. You are blind to the facts that stare you in the face. Dare I say it, blind to the data that literally slaps you across your blind eyes. Thus, I say none of you who replied to this or the ATM thread are scientists. I have been studying the Carolina Bays ALL MY LIFE. There is no other theory that can explain them, excepting the secondary impact theories.

    And I have a question for all of you supposed scientists: Which theory to explain the Carolina Bays was first hypothesized? Answer this question and you will have answered the question of the formation of the Carolina Bays.

    Of course, this post may get me permanently banished. And I care not. I refuse to visit a forum board of wannabe scientists. Or scientists who have absolutely no idea about geomorphological deformation. Then again, this post may provide you wannabes with some amusement. Have fun.

    rmfr

    P.S. - I am working on my second dissertation focusing on the Carolina Bays. Thus, I ain't got much free time. In fact, I stole this time to post this post.
    Difference between a "best" friend and a good friend: A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail. A Best friend will be in jail with you saying, "Dude, we screwed up."

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,705
    Quote Originally Posted by arakish View Post
    <snip>
    It seems as if all you supposed "scientists" here require someone to time travel and film the impact and its effects to get the point through your steel reinforced concrete skulls.

    ...

    Believe what you want. If you cannot believe the impact theories causing the formation of the Carolina Bays, then so be it. You are blind to the facts that stare you in the face. Dare I say it, blind to the data that literally slaps you across your blind eyes. Thus, I say none of you who replied to this or the ATM thread are scientists. I have been studying the Carolina Bays ALL MY LIFE. There is no other theory that can explain them, excepting the secondary impact theories.
    arakish,

    Your insights on this topic are very welcome, but take it down a notch and stop with the name calling and insults.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,246
    arakish,

    Is there an online version of your dissertation or a paper derived therof that we can read? Or does it exist in print format one of us can request?

    I will add that nowhere does this forum purport to be "full of scientists". Yes, some of our members are scientists in various disciplines (probably including geology, geomorphology, and the like), but on the whole, most of us are interested amateurs (but generally intelligent). We might ask for evidence or clarification, but isn't that what science is about? And as a scientist (with at least one Ph.D?) I would hope you'd welcome the chance to explain.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,892
    Quote Originally Posted by arakish View Post
    There is no other theory that can explain them, excepting the secondary impact theories
    Having done science for a long time:
    There is always another theory.
    Likely we have just not thought of it yet.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by arakish View Post
    And where did this idea come from?
    The scientists studying Carolina Bays.
    No one is claiming that dating the soils says exactly when the bays were created. They give an upper limit, i.e. that the bays were created before the soil was deposited. OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) is a PROVEN technology. OSL is not the only dating technique that was used to date the bays. But the OSL dating excludes the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. The range of possible dates for the bays shows that a continuous process created them, not a single impact event.

    There are aeolian, fluvial, and/or karst influences in the probable formation of Carolina Bays
    Geomorphology
    Various geomorphological hypotheses have been proposed to account for the bays, including action of sea currents when the area was under the ocean or the upwelling of ground water at a later time. One major hypothesis within the earth sciences academic community is that a combination of processes created the shapes and orientations of these ancient landforms, including climate change, the formation of siliciclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes.

    Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists argue that the peculiar features of Carolina bays can be readily explained by known terrestrial processes and repeated modification by eolian and lacustrine processes of them over the past 70,000 to 100,000 years.[1] Also, Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists believe to have found a correspondence in time between when the active modification of the rims of Carolina bays most commonly occurred and when adjacent sand dunes were active during the Wisconsinan glaciation between 15,000 and 40,000 years (Late Wisconsinan) and 70,000 to 80,000 years BP (Early Wisconsinan).[2] In addition, Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists have repeatedly found that the orientations of the Carolina bays are consistent with the wind patterns which existed during the Wisconsinan glaciation as reconstructed from Pleistocene parabolic dunes, a time when the shape of the Carolina bays was being modified.[3]

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,246
    Actually, Reality Check raises an interesting point. Surely if you're doing your second dissertation on the Carolina Bays, you are familiar with the existing literature and what it says? A bibliography/citation list of which a portion is readily available (and some online)?

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    95
    The Wikipedia article about the Carolina Bays lists the 2001 article by Zanner and Kuzila noting that the Nebraska Rainwater Basins have similar characteristics and shapes to the Carolina Bays in the East Coast, but the Wikipedia section on geomorphology does not even mention that the axial orientation of the Nebraska Rainwater Basins is almost perpendicular to the axial orientations of the bays on the East Coast and that they, like the Carolina Bays, are also radially aligned toward the Great Lakes region.

    None of the three references cited in the geomorphology section provide a precise explanation for the eolian and lacustrine mechanisms that created the elliptical features with width-to-length ratios averaging 0.58 and how such ratios were maintained over the past 70,000 to 100,000 years.

    The article by May and Warne (cited as reference 1) proposes that Carolina Bays "initially developed as silica-karst features that were later modified by eolian and, perhaps, ice-push processes, which enhanced their elliptical form. The subsequent Holocene rise in sea level caused ground-water levels in the coastal plain to equilibrate near the present-day land surface. This curtailed geochemical weathering, as well as eolian and ice-related processes. Ground-water saturation partially reversed chemical reactions associated with intensive weathering of clays beneath the bays, masking evidence of the severe leaching that occurred during their initial formation."

    The Nebraska Rainwater Basins are at elevations of 400 to 900 meters above sea level on terrain that has not been close to the sea for about 60 million years, but they have the same width-to-length ratios as the Carolina Bays. The arguments for the East Coast bays do not encompass the conditions found in Nebraska.

    Wikipedia
    Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists argue that the peculiar features of Carolina bays can be readily explained by known terrestrial processes and repeated modification by eolian and lacustrine processes
    Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists will continue arguing, but the arguments will not cease until they have a computational model or a different hypothesis that explains the radial orientation and the consistent width-to-length ratios of the ellipses. The piling on of multiple geological processes without quantification amounts to handwaving, which is not enough to support a scientific hypothesis.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,246
    You can't handwave away the problems with an impactor hypothesis either. The question is what hypotheses and theories best explain the current form and placement of the bays. So far the best fit include aeolian and lacustrine effects and seem to exclude an impactor. I see no reason why the radial alignment of the bays cannot be explained by winds. Models of atmospheric circulation during the past ice ages support it, as far as I've read.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    None of the three references cited in the geomorphology section provide a precise explanation for the eolian and lacustrine mechanisms that created the elliptical features with width-to-length ratios averaging 0.58 and how such ratios were maintained over the past 70,000 to 100,000 years.
    We cannot really expect a Wikipedia article to have a complete list of all of the literature on a subject . But the "precise explanation" to an amateur like me looks obvious - the physics of a water and/or a wind pattern acting on depressions created by the various mechanics mentioned. As for the Nebraska Rainwater Basins - they are only mentioned in that one 2001 citation, not the article. But being under sea is not the one and only mechanism in the geomorphology section, citpeks.

    ETA: You are ignoring the fact that many of the bays are not elliptical, citpeks, as pointed out in the Stop ignoring the Carolina Bays ATM thread: They are roughly circles and roughly ellipses with various degrees of departures from perfect circles and ellipses.

    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2015-Dec-14 at 08:57 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    95

    New paper about the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays

    There is a new paper about the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays:
    permanent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019

    The following link will provide free access to the article until March 14, 2017

    https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URHy,3sl3Xil-

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,070
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    There is a new paper about the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays:
    permanent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019

    The following link will provide free access to the article until March 14, 2017

    https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URHy,3sl3Xil-
    It'll be interesting to see what kind of comments you get. Good luck!

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    There is a new paper about the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays:
    permanent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019
    The literature suggests that the Carolina Bays were formed over a long period, e.g. there is a wide range of radiocarbon dates. The OSL dating (as you know) rules out the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Oddly the author completely ignores this!

    The author "fills" some of the bays with ellipses and concludes that they are elliptical. They ignore the fact that the bays have rims that can be indistinct. They cannot say the original overall shape of the bay was elliptical.
    They are roughly circles and roughly ellipses with various degrees of departures from perfect circles and ellipses.

    So we have a dubious paper:
    • Denies the dating of the Carolina Bays.
    • Thinks that rough shapes are ellipses.
    • Seems to have not studied the extensive literature on crater formation in astronomy (but knows about Ames!).
    • No academic affiliation.
      Their address is Zamora Consulting which seems to be a computer consulting company. This suggests no expertise in geology or astronomy.
    • A single author paper.
    • The author cites their own Kindle e-book as if it were scientific literature !
    • The images look like the images in your ATM thread from 2014.
      They also appear on a web site linked to by Zamora Consulting.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The literature suggests that the Carolina Bays were formed over a long period, e.g. there is a wide range of radiocarbon dates. The OSL dating (as you know) rules out the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Oddly the author completely ignores this!

    The author "fills" some of the bays with ellipses and concludes that they are elliptical. They ignore the fact that the bays have rims that can be indistinct. They cannot say the original overall shape of the bay was elliptical.
    They are roughly circles and roughly ellipses with various degrees of departures from perfect circles and ellipses.

    So we have a dubious paper:
    • Denies the dating of the Carolina Bays.
    • Thinks that rough shapes are ellipses.
    • Seems to have not studied the extensive literature on crater formation in astronomy (but knows about Ames!).
    • No academic affiliation.
      Their address is Zamora Consulting which seems to be a computer consulting company. This suggests no expertise in geology or astronomy.
    • A single author paper.
    • The author cites their own Kindle e-book as if it were scientific literature !
    • The images look like the images in your ATM thread from 2014.
      They also appear on a web site linked to by Zamora Consulting.
    Of those statements, only the first carries any weight. All the others are just an opinion. Whose dating are you citing as being the one true and absolutely irrefutable dating methodology?
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    There is a new paper about the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays:
    permanent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019

    The following link will provide free access to the article until March 14, 2017

    https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URHy,3sl3Xil-
    I haven't been able to get free access.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Of those statements, only the first carries any weight. All the others are just an opinion. Whose dating are you citing as being the one true and absolutely irrefutable dating methodology?
    All of them.
    Read Carolina bay to see the wide range of dates that are evidence that their formation is before the Younger Dryas and unlikely to be from one event (an impact).
    Although some questions about their chronology remain a matter of discussion, a variety of dating techniques constrained the age of the Carolina bays. The consideration of multiple lines of evidence, e.g. radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and palynology, indicate that the Carolina Bays predate the start of the Holocene at least by tens of thousands of years to over a hundred thousand years. The range of dates can be interpreted that they were either created episodically over the last tens of thousands of years or were created at time over a hundred thousand years ago and have since been episodically modified.[13][14][15]
    ...
    A new type of extraterrestrial impact hypothesis was proposed as the result of interest by both popular writers and professional geologists in the possibility of a terminal Pleistocene extraterrestrial impacts, including the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. It said that the Carolina Bays were created by a low density comet exploding above or impacting on the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[29] However, this idea has been discredited by OSL dating of the rims of the Carolina bays, paleoenvironmental records obtained from cores of Carolina bay sediments, and other research that shows that many of them are as old as, or older than, 60,000 to 140,000 BP.[13][14][15][30][31]
    The Holocene started about 11,700 years before present.
    The Younger Dryas started c. 12,900.
    Thus the evidence is that the bays were formed at least tens of thousands of years before the Younger Dryas and maybe 100,000 years before.

    These are the facts about the paper and its author:
    1. There is one author.
    2. No academic affiliation (looks like a computer consultant).
    3. No other papers that I can find by the author.
    4. Cites their e-book as a reference.
    5. Incorrectly fits ellipses inside the bays and asserts that makes them ellipses.
    6. Ignores or is unaware of the extensive literature on crater formation in astronomy.
      ETA This includes secondary impacts from impact debris as in the debated Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.
    7. Contains images that appear on a web site and a 2014 ATM thread in this forum.
    8. The experimental model of the title is using a slingshot to fire ice projectiles into a mixture of pottery clay, sand and some water.
      There is no attempt to show that this is a physically realistic model. The velocity of the projectiles is obviously wrong (tens of km/hr rather then the hundreds of a ballistic impact).

    Those facts make the paper dubious to everyone who knows about science. For example, papers written by an author with no evidence of expertise in a field are much less likely to be valid then papers written by an expert or group of experts.

    ETA: There are what non-dubiously authored papers look like:
    Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago by David J. Meltzer,a,1 Vance T. Holliday,b Michael D. Cannon,c and D. Shane Millerd
    aDepartment of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, 75275;
    bSchool of Anthropology and Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721;
    cSWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, 84111; and
    dSchool of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721
    and the reply
    Reply to Holliday and Boslough et al.: Synchroneity of widespread Bayesian-modeled ages supports Younger Dryas impact hypothesis by James P. Kennetta,1, Douglas J. Kennettb, Brendan J. Culletonb, J. Emili Aura Tortosac, Ted E. Bunchd, Jon M. Erlandsone, John R. Johnsonf, Jesús F. Jordá Pardog, Malcome A. LeCompteh, William C. Mahaneyi, Kenneth Barnett Tankersleyj, James H. Wittked, Wendy S. Wolbachk, and Allen Westl,2
    aDepartment of Earth Science and Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
    bDepartment of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
    cDepartment Prehistoria i Arqueologia, Universitat de Valencia, E-46010 Valencia, Spain;
    dGeology Program, School of Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011;
    eMuseum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403;
    fSanta Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA 93105;
    gDepartmento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, E-28040 Madrid, Spain;
    hCenter of Excellence in Remote Sensing Education and Research, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 27909;
    iQuaternary Surveys, Thornhill, ON, Canada L4J 1J4;
    jDepartments of Anthropology and Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221;
    kDepartment of Chemistry, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614;
    lGeoScience Consulting, Dewey, AZ 86327
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jan-24 at 10:46 PM.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    784
    This topic sounded very familiar. I went to my bookshelves and pulled out Frank Edwards' Strange World, originally published in 1964. On the paperback pages 181-182 is "Target: Earth!", a fact-light discussion of the elliptical Carolina Bays (seen also in Georgia and Virginia) "discovered" by a geologist named Dr. F.A. Melton with the University of Oklahoma, and a physicist named Dr. William Schriever of Oklahoma University. They believed, per Frank Edwards, that thousands of years ago a barrage of meteors struck the area and created the bays after flying over the Midwest.

    The problem, as I see it, is that meteor craters are circular even if the meteor hits at an angle.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...t-craters-al/#

    Strange World was popular at the height of the UFO, Loch Ness, ESP thing many years ago, when I was a child and dinosaurs roamed the earth. It's baloney but it was fun to read about long ago. I'll go for a geological explanation.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  22. #82
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    This topic sounded very familiar. I went to my bookshelves and pulled out Frank Edwards' Strange World, originally published in 1964. On the paperback pages 181-182 is "Target: Earth!", a fact-light discussion of the elliptical Carolina Bays (seen also in Georgia and Virginia) "discovered" by a geologist named Dr. F.A. Melton with the University of Oklahoma, and a physicist named Dr. William Schriever of Oklahoma University. They believed, per Frank Edwards, that thousands of years ago a barrage of meteors struck the area and created the bays after flying over the Midwest.

    The problem, as I see it, is that meteor craters are circular even if the meteor hits at an angle.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...t-craters-al/#
    From the article: "This behavior may seem at odds with our daily experience of throwing rocks into a sandbox or mud, because in those cases the shape and size of the 'crater' is dominated by the physical dimensions of the rigid impactor. In the case of astronomical impacts, though, the physical shape and direction of approach of the meteorite is insignificant compared with the tremendous kinetic energy that it carries."

    So, impacts -> circular, but rocks splashed off, maybe not.

    It is true that this theory has been around a long time, and it was investigated, and more or less disproved over the years. Still some hold outs.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, Maryland near Washington, D.C
    Posts
    95

    Inverted stratigraphy found in Carolina Bay rims

    A model for the production of elliptical bays from inclined conical cavities predicts that inverted stratigraphy should be found in the rims of the Carolina Bays (Zamora, 2017). It turns out that some results published six years ago contained evidence of inverted stratigraphy, but the inversion was ignored because it was considered anomalous.

    The appendix of the paper (Bunch, et al., 2012), indicates that the rim of a Carolina Bay tested in Blackville, SC showed inverted stratigraphy. In particular, the date at 152 cmbs was 18.54 ± 1.68 ka, and this layer was found between the 183 cmbs layer dated at 12.96 ± 1.19 ka, and another layer with date at 11.5 ± 1.03 ka at 107 cmbs. The appendix indicates that the date at 152 cmbs was excluded because of the large magnitude of the age reversal, i.e., older sediments lying stratigraphically higher than younger sediments. (see page E1905 and SI Appendix, page 5)

    The layer at 107 cmbs could be part of a sedimentary layer accreted during the last 12,900 years, the 152 cmbs layer could correspond to material brought out from the depth during the excavation process that created the bay, and the 183 cmbs layer could correspond to the surface of the original terrain 12,900 years ago.

    Inverted stratigraphy in the rims of the Carolina Bays is consistent with impact cratering as explained in Melosh (1989, p. 88).

    ====

    Bunch TE, et al. (2012), Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(28): E1903–E1912.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/E1903

    Melosh, H.J., "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process", Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Zamora A. (2017), A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays,
    Geomorphology DOI 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.019

    Carolina Bay conic sections
    https://youtu.be/kHREGRWOdmw

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825

    Formation is before the Younger Dryas and unlikely to be from one event (an impact)

    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    ...Inverted stratigraphy in the rims of the Carolina Bays is consistent with impact cratering as explained in Melosh (1989, p. 88).
    I do not have a copy of Melosh, H.J., "Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process", Oxford University Press, 1989, but this is clearly not a book on geology and the Carolina Bays.
    Your conclusion is wrong. An indication of a single rim with inverted stratigraphy cannot overturn the evidence that has debunked the impact hypothesis for the origin of the Carolina Bays. For example their ages (plural!) do not match any known impacts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Read Carolina bay to see the wide range of dates that are evidence that their formation is before the Younger Dryas and unlikely to be from one event (an impact).
    FYI, this is inverted or reversed stratigraphy
    Reverse stratigraphy (sometimes known as inverted stratigraphy) is the result of a process whereby one sediment is unearthed by human or natural actions and moved elsewhere, whereby the latest material will be deposited on the bottom of the new sediment, and progressively earlier material will be deposited higher and higher in the stratigraphy. Such events can be triggered by rockslides, tree throws, or other events which cause the strata of a deposit to be flipped or reversed.
    What you describe is looks like a single measurement that is not consistent with the surrounding layers, not the inverted stratigraphy that I would expect from an impact (many layers in reverse order).

    The appendix (PDF) states
    The two dates at 107 and 183 cmbs were used to generate an age-depth model, excluding the sample at 152 cmbs because of the large magnitude of the age reversal, i.e., older sediments lying stratigraphically higher than younger sediments
    That section (Blackville Site. Stratigraphy and the YDB layer in Core #1.) does not state that there is an inverted stratigraphy which geologists would have noticed.
    The above quote is on OSL dating - something you have previously stated is wrong!
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jan-28 at 08:22 PM.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by citpeks View Post
    I just came across a paper presented at the May 2015 meeting of the GSA. It has a very interesting chart that shows that the axial orientation of the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska Rainwater Basins can be predicted with a single equation that uses a convergence point at Latitude 43.68, Longitude -83.82. The chart is based on analysis of the orientation of 45,000 bays, so it appears fairly robust. Here is the link:
    https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2015NC/we...per254858.html

    This is slide 27 from the presentation:
    carolina-bay-orientation.jpg
    It may be nitpicking, but it is actually a computer algorithm that predicts the location of the bays using only the location of the convergence point and the latitude
    and longitude of particular basin or bay. The equation is only one part of the algorithm

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The literature suggests that the Carolina Bays were formed over a long period, e.g. there is a wide range of radiocarbon dates. The OSL dating (as you know) rules out the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Oddly the author completely ignores this!

    The author "fills" some of the bays with ellipses and concludes that they are elliptical. They ignore the fact that the bays have rims that can be indistinct. They cannot say the original overall shape of the bay was elliptical.
    They are roughly circles and roughly ellipses with various degrees of departures from perfect circles and ellipses.

    So we have a dubious paper:
    • Denies the dating of the Carolina Bays.
    • Thinks that rough shapes are ellipses.
    • Seems to have not studied the extensive literature on crater formation in astronomy (but knows about Ames!).
    • No academic affiliation.
      Their address is Zamora Consulting which seems to be a computer consulting company. This suggests no expertise in geology or astronomy.
    • A single author paper.
    • The author cites their own Kindle e-book as if it were scientific literature !
    • The images look like the images in your ATM thread from 2014.
      They also appear on a web site linked to by Zamora Consulting.
    I want to see the look on your face when Zamora's work is accepted as the consensus. Only your first two comments are substantive, the rest are ad hominem. Yes, it is true that Zamora rejects the dating of the Carolina Bays that states they were created by gradualistic processes, but he does so in a thoughtful and plausible way, by suggesting that the dating has measured the dates of the terrain on which the impacts occurred, not the dates of the impact. Do you have a reasoned, substantive argument against this hypothesis?

    Any careful and open-minded reader of Zamora's work would be surprised at your assertion that Zamora "thinks that rough shapes are ellipses." Anyone who has viewed the many elliptical bays contained in the Michael Davias's database of LiDAR images of Carolina Bays on cintos.org would be surprised that you think the character of the largest, most well-formed bays as mathematical ellipses is anything other than a physical fact. Zamora has chosen to focus on the elliptical shape of these bays as the key to understanding the formation of all the bays. Michael Davias has chosen to focus on six characteristic shapes of Carolina Bays that he calls "archetypes" as the key to understanding bay formation. These are both perfectly valid lines of inquiry and deserve more respectful analysis than your cursory and mostly ad hominem response.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,705
    Quote Originally Posted by adamwglass View Post
    I want to see the look on your face when Zamora's work is accepted as the consensus. Only your first two comments are substantive, the rest are ad hominem.
    adamwglass

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, do not accuse other members of bad behavior, such as ad hominem. If you someone's post is inappropriate, you Report it (black triangle in the lower left of the post with the ! in it), and let the moderation team deal with it.

    As it is, I find nothing wrong with Reality Check's post.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by adamwglass View Post
    Only your first two comments are substantive, the rest are ad hominem...
    The paper A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays (PDF)
    • Has a single author (that is a fact).
    • No academic affiliation (that is a fact)
      Their address is Zamora Consulting which seems to be a computer consulting company. This suggests no expertise in geology or astronomy (this is a reasonable conclusion).
    • The author cites their own Kindle e-book as if it were scientific literature! (this is a fact).
    • The images look like the images in your ATM thread from 2014 (this is a fact).
      They also appear on a web site linked to by Zamora Consulting.

    The post is a year old so I am no longer sure why the paper hints that the author seems to have not studied the extensive literature on crater formation in astronomy. I may have been thinking of the physics that impacts generally produce circular craters.
    ETA: The paper discusses liquefaction after a calculation of an energy of impact of 1.03 megatons of TNT for a 1 km diameter crater (13 kiloton for a 220 meter crater). So why is this not the vaporization that produces circular craters?

    Section 7 is his impact experiments using very low energy impacts (slingshot into clay and sand). A problem is that these types of experiments lead to the misconception of mostly elliptical craters because they appear for most angles. The literature on crater formation in astronomy points this out. The high energy of meteor impacts leads to vaporization of rock and soil. The fireball creates circular craters for most angles of impact.

    He uses this incorrect low energy experiment to assert that OSL dating only is wrong because there is no subsurface exposed to light. That looks wrong as his experiment images have comical cavities (his words) that expose what is under the differently colored surface. He may imagine that the impact squeezes soil away from the impact point so that nothing under the surface is exposed but his experiment as designed cannot show that. He needs different colored "soil" at different depths and that the "comical cavities" only expose the first layer.

    He is doubly wrong because the OSL dating is done on the rims of the bays. In any impact the crater rim is subsurface material freshly exposed to light.

    Quote Originally Posted by adamwglass View Post
    Do you have a reasoned, substantive argument against this hypothesis?
    Carolina bay: Age
    Although some questions about their chronology remain a matter of discussion, a variety of dating techniques constrained the age of the Carolina bays. The consideration of multiple lines of evidence, e.g. radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and palynology, indicate that the Carolina Bays predate the start of the Holocene at least by tens of thousands of years to over a hundred thousand years. The range of dates can be interpreted that they were either created episodically over the last tens of thousands of years or were created at time over a hundred thousand years ago and have since been episodically modified.[13][14][15]
    Multiple lines of evidence for dates are a reasoned, substantive argument that the bays were not created in a single event or before the Younger Dryas.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Apr-16 at 12:00 AM.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    263
    Is it possible that the impacts or impactors were of such a nature that the normal "conical" forms were altered by these conditions? Perhaps the impactors were not stony. They were icy (flashing to steam) or liquid or a combination. Or, The impacts were not on uncovered soil, ie their was water or ice above ground level. Or a combination of both scenarios?

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Is it possible that the impacts or impactors were of such a nature that the normal "conical" forms were altered by these conditions? Perhaps the impactors were not stony. They were icy (flashing to steam) or liquid or a combination. Or, The impacts were not on uncovered soil, ie their was water or ice above ground level. Or a combination of both scenarios?
    My understanding is that meteor (rocks) or comet (ice) impacts are so energetic that there is little difference. Delivering the equivalent of an atomic bomb's worth of energy into a small area tends to hide the nature of he projectile. The terrain should influence the size of the crater and the kind of ejecta.

    It is the estimate of an "atomic bomb" worth of energy (as in direct impacts) that makes the low energy experiment invalid. However the scenario in the paper is an impact on an ice sheet that blows chunks of ice away for secondary impacts. Secondary impacts should be lower in energy and perhaps lead to mechanical deformation rather than a fireball vaporizing terrain. But:
    Carolina bay
    A new type of extraterrestrial impact hypothesis was proposed as the result of interest by both popular writers and professional geologists in the possibility of a terminal Pleistocene extraterrestrial impacts, including the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. It said that the Carolina Bays were created by a low density comet exploding above or impacting on the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[29] However, this idea has been discredited by OSL dating of the rims of the Carolina bays, paleoenvironmental records obtained from cores of Carolina bay sediments, and other research that shows that many of them are as old as, or older than, 60,000 to 140,000 BP.[13][14][15][30][31]
    This scenario also has the enormous (literally) problem of no evidence of a big original impact crater.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •