The Carolina Bays

[Cintos]

Let me comment a little here on the "Bays". I too was unaware of them until recently. But they are clearly the signature of an upper atmospheric detonation of cometary origin. It is rare for an Impactor to strike the atmosphere or land at a ninety degree angle. Most are less than that, and the best stikes appear to be on the 30% angle, or somewhere close to that.

 

And the reason why they show up in the Carolinas, and some other places, is because of the flat layout of the land. Those strikes on the piedmont, or higher elevations, would be masked easier, and the weathering effect would be faster as well. On a flat lowland area, such as the lower Carolinas, these 'bays' would take longer to disappear.

 

Greetings:

 

Allow me to re-ignight this discussion. I just found the Hypography site and felt it may be a good place to hold a Carolina bay discussion with many folks who have an interdisciplinary interest in physics, astronomy and geography. I see Hill on the thread. He has helped me promote my working Hypothesis as to bay origins on the Google Earth Community Forums. I am including the quote By John L above, since it includes a facet which I feel is important to consider.

 

In a nutshell, my suggestion does involve a cosmic impact, but with a significant twist. It has long been known that the bays are far too shallow to be impact craters. Also, the sand in the rim is typically much different than the underlying strata. I propose that the sand in which the bays are hosted is actually a blanket or sheet of distal ejecta, spread across the landscape at some distance from the actual impact site. I place that impact site far north and long ago, when the Wisconsinian Glaciation was in full force. A very shallow impact into 1 to 2 KM of ice would result in little damage to the earth, but spread a massive wave of very hydrated pulverized terrestrial material (i.e., sand) along an annulus surrounding the crater. Now, imagine that wave of ejecta as a foamy compote of superheated water and steam.

 

 

As it strikes the ground, the imbedded steam bubbles burst, leaving behind a landscape dotted with small surface imperfections. Owing to the arrival angle of the ejecta, the momentum as it slides along the ground will stretch those bubbles along the arrival bearing.

 

 

Attempts have been made to trace the orientations of Carolina bays, and have failed to provide a focus. None of those attempts considered ejecta trajectories over a rotating Earth. The Coriolis effect would steer the ejecta wave; that effect needs to be applied to the triangulation network to have a focus appear. I have been leveraging Google Earth, as it allows for the visualization of such a network upon a spherical playing field, rather than on a geographically distorted flat map.

 

As John L noted, these effects would not be seen except on fairly level terrain. Elsewhere the sand sheet would simply erode off the slopes and not allow for the expression of a level rim.

 

To enable the triangulation network, I have surveyed and documented 25,000 + bay landforms. The survey is hosted in a Google Fusion Table, and can be visualized as a map with placemarks HERE.

 

Yes, I am suggesting the distribution of tens of thousands of cubic km of sand, and yes, this would have been a catastrophic event for the continent. I look forward to some spirited discussion!

[Turtle]

Greetings:

 

Allow me to re-ignight this discussion.

...

I place that impact site far north and long ago, when the Wisconsinian Glaciation was in full force. A very shallow impact into 1 to 2 KM of ice would result in little damage to the earth, but spread a massive wave of very hydrated pulverized terrestrial material (i.e., sand) along an annulus surrounding the crater. Now, imagine that wave of ejecta as a foamy compote of superheated water and steam.

...

Yes, I am suggesting the distribution of tens of thousands of cubic km of sand, and yes, this would have been a catastrophic event for the continent. I look forward to some spirited discussion!

 

i think you contradict yourself by first trying to soften the blow with a low angle & ice, and then going on to have "massive" effects. we can't have our cake & eat it too. :cake:

 

the comet idea put forward earlier in the thread still strikes me as the most plausible answer so far.

[Cintos]

i think you contradict yourself by first trying to soften the blow with a low angle & ice, and then going on to have "massive" effects. we can't have our cake & eat it too. :cake:

 

Actually, I just now finished the last piece of my birthday cake! Yummy..

 

You have made a good observation. My point regarding the low angle and Ice is simply that if the object I propose had made a direct 90º strike, it would have sterilized the planet. The immense volume of terrestrial debris I propose did get excavated from an impact crater, the one at the locii of the triangulation network. Local ejecta would have landed on top of the glacial shield and eventually distributed as "glacial till".

 

I noticed a discussion earlier in the thread about oblique impacts. Yes, Virginia, not all impact craters are round. 5% of all impacts on the terrestrial planets and moons have been identified as oblique, and they create a rather obvious signature crater: they are oval rather than circular, shallow compared to normal impacts, and the local ejecta is distributed in a butterfly pattern. Here is a crater on Mars:

 

 

This crater is interpreted as having been struck from the top of the image, traversing towards the bottom, with a significant component of the impactor ricocheting back into space, out the ramp on the bottom. A unique situation, certainly, but there it is.

 

My problem with a cometary airburst is that the structure of a Carolina bay does not suggest any deformation in either the underlying sediments, nor within the rims. The rims charmingly have no structure whatsoever - they are monolithic vertically and horizontally, with no perceivable layering. And, as I already noted, the chemical composition of the rims have no relationship the the underlying sediments. It is like they were poured into place from a giant cement truck. And while the bays clearly do suggest a "layering" of events in some locations, that can be easily address by waves of ejecta moments apart painting the same area.

 

My "shallow" oblique impact crater has a depth that is 5% of the diameter. A 1KM Carolina bay that is 5 m deep is shallower by an order of magnitude.

 

I am a fan of the Taurid Complex, but as a source of the major impact. One could speculate that the ricochet created the current stream of debris from the progenitor, and deflected the orbit of the complex into its current earth-crossing path.

 

The attached KMZ file will open in Google Earth and place the Mars crater, above, on the Earth as an example.

MarsCrater.kml

[Turtle]

well, as i have said before, i don't see any credible evidence for richochets of impacting bodies. i did write to one of the sandia labs guys to ask the last time we discussed it but recieved no reply. :shrug: butterfly shapes & craters also come from air bursts as at tunguska. anyway, i'm not currently up for an argument over it so have fun & que sera sera.

[fahrquad]

People had lived in North Carolina, and other places, and never though much about the many small shallow lakes and ponds in the vicinity except to figure out ways to drain them and plant crops there. That changed in 1930 when the first aerial photographs of the area were taken.

The lakes were then discovered to be of about the same shape and orientation, and people began to speculate about their origin. One strong contender for awhile has been the bays are formed by winds, and or water currents. The other strong contender is that they were formed by a large meteor or comet that exploded high in the atmosphere and spewed chunks of itself over much of North America.

Recent evidence strongly supports the fragmented comet theory. Rather than duplicate everything I've gathered at the Google Earth Community Forums, I'll provide a link: Google Earth Community: The mystery of the Carolina Bays

The initial post has some links itself. The Carolina Bays has a video of a conference about event which is rather long but may be of perticular interest because it contains current information (May, 2007).

 

 

Most definitely impact craters of objects coming in at a low angle of approach. Most comets have been characterized as little more than dirty snowballs, so I would lean more in the direction of meteorites.

[Kalopin]

It is my belief that these craters were the result of meteor showers coming from the coma of Comet C/1811 F1. These were rather small impacts that were reported at, or near the same time as the quakes. It has been an ongoing investigation of mine that a rather large piece of this comet impacted Northern Mississippi, to cause The Great Earthquake of 1811-1812. I understand how this may sound, but study the evidence and you will see how the pieces fit together. If this interests you, google "Kalopins Legacy", or, I have a blog on this site entitled "1811-1812 A Comet and A Quake". Thanks

[Turtle]

It is my belief that these craters were the result of meteor showers coming from the coma of Comet C/1811 F1. These were rather small impacts that were reported at or near the same time as the quakes. It has been an ongoing investigation of mine that a rathar large piece of this comet impacted Northern Mississippi, to cause The Great Earthquake of 1811-1812. I understand how this may sound, but study the evidence and you will see how the pieces fit together. If this interests you, google "Kalopins Legacy", or, I have a blog on this site entitked "1811-1812 A Comet and A Quake". Thanks

 

seriously dude, stop. :naughty: your pushing of your book and blogs is nothing more than spam and i see that it's not limited to our board. you blocked my last comment to your blog here, so again i have to ask what is your academic background such that anyone should take this proposal seriously? that comet came nowhere near the earth, the carolina bays are far older than 200 years, and the new madrid quakes of 1811/12 are not historically unique to that fault system.

[Kalopin]

I appreciate your insight. Never said a word about the book. Just stating facts and giving evidence. As I have said, study each line on the satellite view of the river valley, and notice how far the land was pulled northward, and how all lines incircle the middle, at the top of North Mississippi. Go to the website, zoom in on the photos of the rocks, read the article "a few comments on 1811", study all the evidence you may find, it's free. I never said the area couldn't have already been seismic, just that this time it was the result of an impact. And, like I said, many astronomers reported the comet to be one and a half times the size of the sun, that was in October and November of 1811. There were many meteor showers reported at the time. Look up "The Accounts of Samuel Mitchell 1815", and go to Captain Robert Alexander of North Carolinas account. Go to where they talk about the volcano "fire Mountain" and how it had been "rent"[flattened] to its base.

[Moontanman]

The Carolina Bays are not impact craters, they were made by natural aeolian and water currents. Bold is mine...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay

 

Theories of Origin

 

 

 

More than a dozen bays are shown in this photo in southeastern North Carolina. Several are cleared and drained for farming.

Theories of the origin of the Carolina bays fall into two major categories: that these features were created by forces within the Earth, or that they were gouged by an astronomical event or set of events.

[edit]Geomorphology

Various geomorphological theories 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 theory 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 siliclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes.

Various proposals that they were either directly or indirectly created by a meteorite shower or exploding comet are disputed by many scientists for an apparent lack of extraterrestrial material, absence of shocked quartz and "bedrock" deformation associated with larger bays, and extremely low ratio of depth to diameter of the larger bays. More information on these theories can be found at: Carolina Bays.

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. [2]. 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 Wisconsin glaciation between 15,000 and 40,000 years and 70,000 to 80,000 years BP [3]. 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 Wisconsin glaciation as reconstructed from Pleistocene parabolic dunes, a time when the shape of the Carolina bays was being modified [4].

[edit]Impact event

The cometary impact theory of the origin of the bays was popular among earth scientists of the 1930s and 40s. It said that they were the result of a low density comet exploding above or impacting with the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[1]

New hypotheses arose again in the 1980s and 1990s, spurred on by various attention to impacts such as the Tunguska event, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and a theorized link to the unsolved scientific mystery of the Younger Dryas event. Impact geologists determined the depressions are too shallow to be impact features. Reports of magnetic anomalies turned out not to show consistency across the sites. There were no meteorite fragments or impact crater geologic structures. None of the necessary evidence for an impact was found. The conclusion was to reject the impact theory at the Carolina bays.[2]

[Kalopin]

:) People have been known to be wrong before, even geologists! A few questions. Why, then aren't these features common around our planet where there are simalar circumstances? How could these "depressions" be very old, being mostly in topsoil and sand, and having so little erosion, can you imagine hardly any erosion in tens of thousands of years? Why would an impact geologist think that craters should be of a certain depth, or have magnetic properties, or have to possess fragments under every condition, especially in an area so close to a body of water, where materials are easily washed away? Why did they have to stop the farmers from plowing through them? Being on the coast, do you not believe others might have developed this very land before within these thousands of years? Being honest has always and especially recently, been effected by making profit and satisfying constituants, let's hope this is not the case, you think? ;)

[Turtle]

:) People have been known to be wrong before, even geologists! A few questions. Why, then aren't these features common around our planet where there are simalar circumstances? How could these "depressions" be very old, being mostly in topsoil and sand, and having so little erosion,...

 

please cite your source(s) for the geomorphology of the depressions that you assert. my please notwithstanding, our rules require it.

 

... Being honest has always and especially recently, been effected by making profit and satisfying constituants, let's hope this is not the case, you think? ;)

 

exactly who is profitting and how in your conspiracy schema? (besides you with your book that is. )

[Kalopin]

please cite your source(s) for the geomorphology of the depressions that you assert. my please notwithstanding, our rules require it.

Still just looking for answers to simple questions. He stated that Earth Scientists in the 30s and 40s believed it to be meteors from a comet 12,900 yrs. ago [although more than likely these scientists in 1940 said 129 yrs. ago, that's just my opinion], as I believe history has been altered because of superstition, ignorance, religous beliefs, and recently greed.

 

 

exactly who is profitting and how in your conspiracy schema? (besides you with your book that is. )

Truths are distorted for profit, other than donations, mainly due to Government Grant money, especially in the U.S. as, I'm sure in any other countries that give money for research. What do you think would happen to their grant money, if the government found out it wasn't due to that particular area of study, but belonged to another? :unsure:

[Turtle]

:) People have been known to be wrong before, even geologists! A few questions. Why, then aren't these features common around our planet where there are simalar circumstances? How could these "depressions" be very old, being mostly in topsoil and sand,...

please cite your source(s) for the geomorphology of the depressions that you assert. my please notwithstanding, our rules require it.

Still just looking for answers to simple questions. He stated that Earth Scientists in the 30s and 40s believed it to be meteors from a comet 12,900 yrs. ago [although more than likely these scientists in 1940 said 129 yrs. ago, that's just my opinion], as I believe history has been altered because of superstition, ignorance, religous beliefs, and recently greed.

 

again, what are your sources of information that describe the sediments in the carolina bays as "being mostly topsoil and sand...". no ifs ands or buts. give your source(s).

 

exactly who is profitting and how in your conspiracy schema? (besides you with your book that is. )

Truths are distorted for profit, other than donations, mainly due to Government Grant money, especially in the U.S. as, I'm sure in any other country that gives money for research. What do you think would happen to their grant money, if the government found out it wasn't due to that particular area of study, but belonged to another? :unsure:

 

putting aside the lack of coherence in your reply, what are your sources of information that lead you to your belief?

 

obviously i think this is all off topic & that klap-pin is...erhm...deluded...yeah...that'll fly. good grief. :fly:

[Kalopin]

again, what are your sources of information that describe the sediments in the carolina bays as "being mostly topsoil and sand...". no ifs ands or buts. give your source(s).

 

 

 

putting aside the lack of coherence in your reply, what are your sources of information that lead you to your belief?

 

obviously i think this is all off topic & that klap-pin is...erhm...deluded...yeah...that'll fly. good grief. :fly:

 

 

Well, the EPA says the land is filled with up to fifteen feet of highly organic peat soils [easily eroded], although I'm sure you could just google "Carolina Bays soil and sediment make-up" for yourself, just go to this site at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bayclay.html and read their analysis. They say blue or light gray clay, black mud, and lower lake sediments [also easily eroded]. Also, I would just say that, I've seen some of the Kaolinite, and it had a red, rusty hue, obvviously iron content, that could easily be meteoritic. All the "depressions" run in the same direction, from northwest to southeast and are elliptical shaped. Sorry, but little personal attacks never help someones arguement. :rolleyes: They should all give it up and just admit that these are craters! :P

[Turtle]

Well, the EPA says the land is filled with up to fifteen feet of highly organic peat soils [easily eroded], although I'm sure you could just google "Carolina Bays soil and sediment make-up" for yourself, just go to this site at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bayclay.html and read their analysis. They say blue or light gray clay, black mud, and lower lake sediments [also easily eroded]. Also, I would just say that, I've seen some of the Kaolinite, and it had a red, rusty hue, obvviously iron content, that could easily be meteoritic. All the "depressions" run in the same direction, from northwest to southeast and are elliptical shaped. Sorry, but little personal attacks never help someones arguement. :rolleyes: They should all give it up and just admit that these are craters! :P

 

first of all i consider your posts attacks on the integrity of our board; this never helps someone's argument. :rolleyes: you should just give up and admit you are a deluded author. :P

 

now from your source (not from the EPA by-the-by :doh:):

 

CLAY MINERALOGY OF SOME CAROLINA BAY SEDIMENTS

...

Most of these bays are now sediment-filled shallow depressions, but some have not been completely filled and contain lakes. In each of the Carolina Bays so far examined, there is a layer of blue or light gray clay between the most recent black mud and the lower-most lake sediment. In Singletary Lake, Bladen County, North Carolina, Frey (1953) found that the blue clay contained pollen of cold climate vegetation including spruce. Material from just above the blue clay had a radiocarbon date of 10,000 years. Thus the blue clay in all the bays examined was deposited during Pleistocene time. There is considerable similarity between the blue clay layers although the bays examined were located up to a hundred miles apart.

 

...

The distribution features listed above are consistent, therefore, with the conclusion that the clay minerals in the bay sediments were washed or blown into the bays from the surrounding surficial sediments and that they have undergone little alteration since deposition....

 

did you even read this reference yourself? if the sediments are 100000 years old then they weren't deposited by a comet in 1811. moreover if they were blown in by wind, they weren't deposited by a comet at anytime. (the publish date of 1959 notwithstanding.)

 

moreover, per moontan's wikipedia article, more recent analysis shows...

...Impact geologists determined the depressions are too shallow to be impact features. Reports of magnetic anomalies turned out not to show consistency across the sites. There were no meteorite fragments or impact crater geologic structures. None of the necessary evidence for an impact was found. The conclusion was to reject the impact theory at the Carolina bays.[2]...

 

oh but wait...your sources are lying for profit...but they don't agree with your conclusion...but they are your sources...but you are an expert... but you have no credentials...but you have a keyboard... but you just know you are right...butt, butt, butt...