Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Carolina Bays

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Wiki

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    The current Wiki article is here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays

    Have fun!
    Should you go deep into the Wikipedia comment threads, you will see that the gatekeeper of that page does not suffer fools or citizen scientists lightly. He has scrubbed off just about every reference I tried to make to conference papers and posters, so I stopped trying 8 years ago.... He did let one external link slide through,( LiDAR-Derived Digital Elevation Maps Of The Delmarva Peninsula And Southern New Jersey Used To Identify Carolina Bay Landforms; Their Planform Shape And Orientation Changes Systematically With Latitude ) likely because you can't argue with the LiDAR, something not available during the vast majority of the time bays have been researched. Consider the "Proven" and accepted observation that the bays are defined primarily by a prominent SE rim. A majority of the the bays in the survey are merely basins with a circumferential demarcation point where they drop from the surrounding pediment. Large bays with prominent SE rims occasionally host a dusting of sand dune structures blown up off the bay floor during dry times.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Depressions_in_Pediment.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	504.5 KB 
ID:	24605

    BTW, the Wiki linked abstract (which contains a link to the presentation) was "only" a poster. At the same 2011 Annual meeting in Minneapolis, I also delivered an invited lecture entitled Lidar Imagery Employed In Carolina Bays Research. The abstract includes a link to a 16 mb PDF of the presentation deck. The Wikipedia moderator excised that abstract from the external links listing.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    Should you go deep into the Wikipedia comment threads, you will see that the gatekeeper of that page does not suffer fools or citizen scientists lightly. He has scrubbed off just about every reference I tried to make to conference papers and posters, ....
    That is not correct, Cintos. The "gatekeepers" (there are none because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort) of any Wikipedia page on science wants the page to be based on science. That means as many published, peer reviewed sources as possible. Any citizen scientist can publish in peer reviewed journals. No conference posters which can be from anyone with any idea. Any conference papers are typically those published in conference proceedings. There are rules in Wikipedia to enforce this which is why there are [citation needed] tags.

    ETA: If we do as you suggest, we read a possible issue with Wikipedia rules: Conflict of Interest And Cintos Edits
    Recent changes, such as the addition of links to Geological Society of America meeting abstracts to the Carolina Bay article, indicates that the promoting of original research, Conflict of interest, is likely a major issue with Cintos' edits. Paul H. (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    You response is replied to with If a person looks at the published literature, which is cited in the article, they will find the above paragraph makes false and unsubstantiated claims about the OSL dates mentioned in the article. First, contrary to the false claims made in the above paragraph, these OSL dates are cited in peer-reviewed journals and publications, of which some are cited in the article. .... You are persisting with similar claims here. OSL and other dating techniques give measured, published ages for the bays.

    Unfortunately that "8 years ago" you mention points out a problem with your ATM idea. If it was more than an idea, you have had time enough to publish a peer reviewed paper. The lack of a paper hints that either all you have is an unsupported idea or that a paper has been rejected as obviously invalid.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-08 at 11:24 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    No arguments against the mainstream allowed in ATM?

    The unrelenting chant of “but ... it is against the mainstream!” is a bit of a surprise from the ATM forum. The constant drum is quite familiar, as I have great experience with being told by the scientific publishing realm that a cosmic connection to the genesis of the Carolina bays has been banished from peer review publications. Zamora managed to craft a successful submission, but I have seen the backlash and it is even more unlikely to be considered now.

    My hopes today lie in the growing accumulation of 10Be/26Al burial dating showing an anomalous distribution of regolith across the continent 800 ka. I am engaged in the dating of the paleo surface (typically Cretaceous in age) that lie 5 to 15 meters below today’s rim surfaces. If those results falsify a catastrophic aggregation event I shall give up the conjecture.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Samples from claws.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	458.5 KB 
ID:	24607

    Catcha' 22. Do not challenge established science in an Against The Mainstream topic???. I was prepared to defend my position, but not prepared for the demand that I do nothing to refute mainstream literature unless I have proof published in the Mainstream Literature. I do not question their dating results or their motives, I only question why they are testing the surficial sediments of 800 ka landforms with technology that can only return not younger than dates. The simple fact that the vast majority of those were taken to date paleo Indian artifacts shows their motivation to date surficial sediments... those eolian and fluvial deposits that settled on the landscape post artifact deposition. Pull them from the mix and you have a pitifully few dates for a landform that is the most extensive landform across the Atlantic costal plain. Some of those few are acknowledged by the workers to provide only not younger than constraints.

    The Mid Pleistocene Transition (or Revolution) is not my term. Strange things happened at that time. Java man disappeared from the Sangiran Dome at the tektite horizon. There was a significant foraminifera extinction event, the Earth's Magnetic field flipped, and the ice ages transition from 21/44 k to 100k cycles magically. OSL and C14 can not date the burial of a "regolith injection" (Balco's term) occurring 800 ka. 10Be/26Al can and did - finding an anomalous regolith injection in an Iowan glacial till and in Green River karst structures, both previously considered LGM artifacts, but turned out to be 800ka. Same for a recent finding of a regolith impulse ~750 ka within a catchment basin that had been accumulating only saprolite for over a 100 million years.

    But a massive cosmic impact DID occur at 788 ka. FLASH- after 50 years of searching, great scientists have failed to find the impact structure within their designated a priori location. Tim and I have discovered it is also firmly against the mainstream to propose they might be misguided, and that perhaps the actual impact was into the NA continental ice sheet at MIS 20. An a priori location within the strewnfield is Mainstream, even though it has not been productive!!!!! Do not question the man behind the curtain! Your paper can not be published! You must not claim the other three crater-strewnfield parings falsify an Indochina location - you two are naive and those data are only serendipity (actual wordings)!! Tim and I have contemplated him opening up an ATM on just why the impact structure responsible for the Australasian tektites has not been found. Big fail though? It is against the mainstream, so not allowed in Against The Mainstream?

    The proposal is that the Carolina bays, whose orientations triangulate to an event in the Great Lakes, are artifacts in the LOCAL/MEDIAL ejecta blanket of that event. The Tektites are DISTAL /ˈdɪs.təl/ . Which syllable of DISTAL is not understood? Why am I being questioned about finding tektites in the Carolina bays?????

    Again, the dating can not be resolved until more isotopic burial dating is done. A good part of my motivation to pursue forums like CosmoQuest is to raise awareness of the need to do so. If there is no interest here in exploring the evidence I have assembled in the Carolina Bays Survey, then it is time to close the thread. All I hear is that the web illustrations created for the 2019 GSA's Southeastern Meeting, and shared above, smell like garlic (all 550 pages of them being full screen high resolution elevation LiDAR hsv-shaded elevation maps), and as an American of Italian decent, I find that a personal affront . Besides, I love garlic, especially in my baked artichokes.
    Last edited by Cintos; 2019-Oct-09 at 03:48 AM. Reason: remove duplicate text.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    The unrelenting chant of “but ... it is against the mainstream!” is a bit of a surprise from the ATM forum....
    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays. The mainstream evidence is that the bays have a range of ages. The mainstream evidence is that the bays have a maximum age of just over 100,000 years. This is independent C14, OSL, palynology and stratigraphy evidence that are consistent at least in 1 bay. You have presented no evidence at all to alter these dates from C14, OSL, palynology and stratigraphy.
    Also stated in That is my point - the maximum measured age of the bays is ~600,00 years after your ATM idea thus your ATM idea is currently wrong (ditto for the range of dates).

    You need evidence to support your ATM idea of a specific creation event. Thus my still unanswered questions but the thread is not 1 day into its 30 day limit so you have plenty of time to answer them.
    IF01: List the papers that discovered Australasian tektites in the Carolina bays.
    IF02: List the papers that dated the ages of the Carolina bays to 790 ka years ago.
    IF03: Show how the impact 790 ka years ago that created the Australasian tektites also created the Carolina bays with their measured orientation.
    IF04: How did your Carolina bays survive the Laurentide Ice Sheet after 790 ka years ago?
    IF05: Where is the ejecta or ejecta impact features from your 790 ka year impact in the Carolina bays?

    ETA: We are not disputing that many impacts have happened over the last million years or more - ask the dinosaurs ! Cherry picking an arbitrary impact is almost as bad as cherry picking the dinosaur killer impact. That is almost another question - how did you rule out an impact 65 million years ago? More seriously:
    IF06: List the major impacts on Earth and your reasons for eliminating them all except this specific impact as sources for the bays.
    Many of them will be eliminated for the simple reason that they are so old that the eastern seaboard of North America did not exist. But we know there was an impact resulting in Belize tektites about your date - how did you eliminate that?

    ETA: FLASH: Geologists not finding an crater for the Australasian tektite impact does not support your ATM idea. You finding that crater would be evidence for your ATM idea.

    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319 has "If the Western Canadian sample was transported by impact ejection and belongs to the Australasian strewn field, this implies extremely far ballistic transport of 9000 km distance, assuming a source crater in southern Asia". So
    IF07: Do you have a calculation of the ballistic transport of tektites from your Great Lakes impact to the Australasian and Western Canadian locations?
    See Australasian strewnfield - the size of the impact crater is not small.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-09 at 04:26 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    ATM question: How many times does a formal question need to be answered.

    Reality Check is doing a good job in presenting me debate questions. I can not precede against a trail of questions if my answers are not accepted and the question is requested yet again. Is there a "scoreboard" of questions and tagged answers to work out? Is the community member who asked a question the only one in the community that has a voice in accepting the answer?

    6. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation in your own words as to how that research supports what you are saying.
    It seems mandated that I can not question the applicability of published research, and the hypothesis must be supported by published research. Therefor, I have no opportunity here to share my work product with the community. My efforts here are a foolish waste of everyone's time. I will offer this, though: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2018.11.013

    I am comfortable being "against the mainstream", which is where I belong at the current state of the inquiry. I just can not resign myself to the CosmoQuest interpretation of debating the Mainstream without daring to actually question it. Sort of how Wegener felt when his alleged "continents ploughing through the oceans" were not required by the Mainstream, because of per-eminent facts like the Isthmus of Panama and the Bearing Land Bridge proved the continents were all linked at one time by land bridges. He needed new technologies like paleo-magnetic dating of sediments... although paleo-magnetic rocks first and to endure a firestorm to prove their relevance.

    2. People who are looking to use BAUT(ATM?) as a marketing platform for their alternative theories. Tell us your idea, that's fine. But we're not going to allow the forum to turn into a marketing vehicle for them. 30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else.
    The creation of this ATM was an aberration. My first post above stated my intended agenda of sharing the true planforms of the Carolina bays, and it has been unfortunately overpowered by a churlish association with the inane YDB debate. So I have done my "marketing" and it is time to shut this party down. Should anyone actually be interested, please reference my ResearchGate listings, or just Google "Cintos Carolina Bay LiDAR" and try to ignore all those who have leveraged my freely-distributed LiDAR to support their own agendas. All Cintos.com data is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

    We present a novel approach to the genesis of the Carolina bays, proposing that those enigmatic landforms are depositional features within a 1 to 10 meter-thick blanket of hydrated ejecta associated with a cosmic impact into the North American ice shield at the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, ~800,000 years ago. The ellipsoidal bays exhibit an "inferred orientation", facilitating the use of a triangulation network to identify the associated terrestrial impact crater. Attempts by others to triangulate bay orientations to a causal crater may have failed because the ballistic physics and fluid mechanics aspects of an ejecta distribution were not considered. An analytical model was heuristically developed to generate ejecta emplacement orientations that reflect large-scale geophysical flow effects, and its results were compared to empirically measured bay orientations of 45,000 Carolina bays. Our model's predicted results correlate well with actual bay orientations when an oblique cosmic impact across the Saginaw area of Michigan is considered. The great-circle distances separating the proposed Saginaw impact crater and all identified Carolina bays also correlate well; the bay’s geographic distribution is along an annulus surrounding the proposed crater. These positive correlations suggest that a unique geospatial relationship exists between the proposed impact location and the Carolina bays of North America.

    Pleistocene Epoch cosmic impacts have been implicated in the geomorphology of two enigmatic events. Remarkably, in both cases spirited debates remain unsettled after nearly 100 years of extensive research. Consensus opinion holds that the Australasian (AA) tektites are of terrestrial origin despite the failure to locate the putative crater, while a cosmic link to the Carolina bays is considered soundly falsified by the very same lack of a crater. Likely >100 km in diameter, these impacts during geologically recent times should be readily detectable on the Earth’s surface. The improbability that two craters have eluded detection informs a hypothesis that a single impact at ~786 ka generated AA tektites as Medial ejecta and Carolina bays as progeny of proximal ejecta. The AA astroblem search is focused on SE Asia despite a strewn field encompassing >30% of the Earth’s surface. This spatial scope implies to us that interhemispheric transits should be considered, as does findings that AA tektites were solidified in a vacuum, then ablated on re-entry at ~10 km sec-1. A Coriolis-aware triangulation network operating on the orientations of 44,000 Carolina bays indicates a focus near 43N, 84W. Referencing the work of Urey and Lin, we propose that a near-tangential strike to the Earth’s limb generated the 150 x 300 km oval depression that excises Saginaw Bay and opens Michigan’s Thumb. That region was likely buried under deep MIS 19 Laurentide ice at 786 ka. Schultz has shown that oblique impacts into continental ice sheets yield non-traditional astroblemes, and multiple glaciations have since reworked this site, making identification more challenging. Hypervelocity gun tests show that oblique impacts produce a vertical plume of ejecta, biased slightly down-range. Ballistic trajectories reflecting such a plume deliver tektites to all AA finds when lofted at ~10 km sec-1 and parameterized with the proposed depression’s location and 222 azimuth. Chemical and isotopic characteristics of AA tektites suggest they were sourced from sandstone and greywacke of Mesozoic age, which is congruent with Michigan Basin strata lost when The Thumb developed. The distribution of proximal ejecta may explain anomalous pulses of regolith in moraines and sediment loading in regional drainage basins recently dated ~800 ka using 10Be/26Al methods.
    Last edited by Cintos; 2019-Oct-09 at 12:34 PM. Reason: bye

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,208
    Thread closed pending moderator discussion

    Do not attempt to start a new thread on this or related topics while this discussion is on-going.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,360
    After discussion we have decided to keep this thread closed. Two reasons: the proponent(s) seem to be more interested in metadiscussion than defending an ATM, which makes it very difficult for us to guide the discussion. Second: it violates rule 12 in the sense that we have judged this ATM to be much more about geology than space and astronomy. We suggest continuing this discussion on some more geology focused website.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

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