I've accidently created these types of impact craters far before I discovered your hypothesis. And this is why I believe your hypotheses is correct. I noticed at the beach when a wave recedes there is a moment when the sand has the perfect water to sand ratio. If you drop small amounts of water with or without a sand mixture, the impact makes these very ridges. Of course the shape was round because the droplets fell directly perpendicular to the surface. But when I saw these examples, I did not doubt that falling ice and dirt can fall on swampy marsh and make these shapes. I recommend may sceptics to your work.
The tens of thousands of years of undisturbed stratigraphy on top of the bays makes any connection with the YD comet strike impossible, or indeed any idea that makes them all the same age.
You need to become familiar with Viscous Relaxation. It is the geological process that makes cavities less deep and mountains less prominent. It also can restore the stratigraphy in a viscous medium. th-cam.com/video/k0KV5H6f7vU/w-d-xo.html
@@Antonio_Zamora as I was driving recently using a GPS app, I thought of how cool it would be to have a LiDAR overlay for GPS so you could visualize when you're driving through a bay.
Reminds me of a ~90 year old lady, long ago, she always ate pie, cake, and other sugar treats. Drag them puppies through the mud. I don't know, seems obvious to me. And, what force holds this mathematical shape over all this time and how do they communicate with each other to align radially, essentially parallel. People must be reading Fiction too much, not on this planet. It is sort of like taking pictures of the concentric circles of a rock tossed in the water, at your perspective, they show the mathematics of ellipses . You are seeing the end of its energy being dispelled, frozen in time.
BTW. There was just an impact recorded on mars. It was multiple objects. And it made these shapes. You must check it out. Happened in the last 6 months.
Antonio, I recently heard the lecture by Chris Cottrell discussing his idea of the bays being much older than the YD due to the ancient shore line erasing any bay formations near Myrtle Beach. Have you made a video addressing this theory and if so, I apologize if I have overlooked it. I hope you and your family had a good holiday season and thank you so much for your hard work. Cheers
Chris and I have made several videos with our diverging proposals for the age of the Carolina Bays. I have always thought that the tremendous energy of the ballistic sedimentation of the ejecta curtain would have killed all the fauna within 1500 km from the ET impact site which would have triggered an extinction event. Here is a video where I discuss contextual dating of the bays. th-cam.com/video/aHTbVqCPBrA/w-d-xo.html
The saturated ground was liquefied by the impacts that created the Carolina Bays. There was not enough resistance to create shock structures. If the projectiles were made of glacier ice there would be no siderophile elements. One instance of shocked-fractured quartz was reported: th-cam.com/video/K434-CP0FEk/w-d-xo.html
the only issue with your inclined conical cavity suggestion is that it necessitates giant tidal waves of sandy mud having occurred *during* the ice boulder bombardment, yet all geologic dating and analysis indicate these dunes were there for many 1000s of years prior to the YD. the simplest explanation is that the CB are superficial craters formed as the impactors' violent, hypersonic shock waves collapsed onto the surface and pushed the top few layers of soil from the center outward, resulting in shallow raised rims. this theory better explains features like "Big Bay" where apparently intruding dunes pre-date the YD. the resulting shockwave from the impactor that landed at the center of Big Bay was simply unable to "push" the massive dunes that encroach the western portion of that basin and this would still be congruent with a YD origin.
From this, shouldn't a core sample from the center of the bays eventually indicate a very large disparity in age from the surface and going down? I would suspect the largest bays have the greatest disparity as they should've had the deepest impacts. At the one minute mark in your video the geologist mentions getting to MIS6 in the time scale. So why wouldn't a core sample from the center of a bay show a jump in time from 13ka to 100ka?
Inside the bay, during viscous relaxation, material from various layers seep in from the sides and below, almost back to the surface level. I wouldn't want to base a conclusion from such a randomised sample, would you?
In fact the tens of thousands of years' worth of undisturbed stratigraphy (soil layers) on top of the bays demonstrates any theory claiming them produced simultaneously and recently is instantly falsified. They are not plausibly produced by wind, but that does not mean the next idea to surface is right. Both are wrong, and the actual cause remains a mystery.
So how about finding someone who owns the land where you would best expect we could find evidence by drilling/excavation and sampling and start a fundraising program to directly address some of these questions. Just the overlapping sediment date's would show that the bottom is on the top and there's only a few ways that can happen. I believe it's a important thing to know about especially if true it would explain many dramatic changes that occurred around the time proposed in and around the younger drias.
The exploration of the Carolina Bays will need to be an organized project with wide support. The first priority should be to date cores from the rims of many Carolina Bays to establish that they are indeed impact structures with inverted stratigraphy. Right now, many geologists oppose the impact hypothesis.
@@Antonio_Zamora yes but we can't entirely discount an impact origin if inverted stratigraphy isn't consistently found in these rims. the surficial impact cratering hypothesis (like Prouty suggested) suggests the top few layers of soil would've been blown outwards from the center and created raised rims and may not have even involved lifting and overturning a "flap" of soil near the periphery of the bays.
I grew up in southwest Georgia and some areas have what we believed were swamps or old farm ponds with trees growing in them will have to take a look at LIDAR imagery!!!
Theres asteroid impact sites all over North America. In Wisconsin south of me a hour there is a county park, inside of a asteroid crater. You pan for gold there. Canada has huge craters. Most definitely debris the size of states went flying ☄️☄️☄️☄️☄️
Wouldn’t extream bombardment result n liquefaction of unconsolidated soil as per vibration/ earthquakes. Resulting in sediment settling by weight ??? Specifically if melting of the Lauretide started much earlier
Of course it was ice, no meteroites have ever been found nor exist at the bottom of these, earth would look identical to Mars if not for the vegetation and water on the surface
These "scientists" who continue to insist that these radially oriented perfectly elliptical features were created by wind and water erosion must be made to find and catalog other features around the globe that have radially oriented perfectly elliptical shapes. Erosion from rivers, ancient shore lines from ancient lakes, deposited sediments from ancient rivers behave the very same way all around the world. Therefore, radially oriented perfectly elliptical features must be found everywhere on the planet, if wind and water erosion is the mechanism for the formation of the Carolina Bays. However, no such features that are radially oriented and with perfect elliptical shapes can be found anywhere else on Earth. That means that these features, found in the eastern and central United States were created by an unusual and unique process. Impacts from ballistically launched bodies, so far, is the only process that can adequately explain the perfectly elliptical radially oriented features, and that can, in laboratory demonstrations, REPEAT and REPLICATE radially oriented perfectly elliptical features. If the "scientists" can't find radially oriented perfectly elliptical features anywhere else on Earth, then something very different happened in that one place to make those features. These "scientists" who refuse to look at or answer these questions are NOT scientists. They are religious zealots who fiercely defend their religion of the Church of Non-Catastrophic Uniformitarian Geology. Randall Carlson says, that uniformitarian geology is valid, but that the geologists refuse to accept that there have been times when the Earth had suffered enormous sudden geological changes from time to time throughout its existence.
I think impacts have had a huge effect on Earth's geology but the evidence says that ain't what made the Carolina bays. Here's a quick explanation. During the ice age, the ground along much of the east coast of North America was permafrost. That means all but the very top layer remained frozen all year round. Shallow lakes form on flat ground over permafrost during the summer. The prevailing winds push the water which gets deflected to each side by the shore of the lake. Two swirls are formed in the lake, one on each side, which then erodes the sides leaving an oval shaped lake with the long axis perpendicular to the prevailing wind. You want me to find similar features somewhere else? Are three other places enough for you? The same shapes actively being formed now in Alaska and Siberia. Look for yourself on google earth. 70°N - 155°W by the town of Atqasuk, Alaska. A delightful place, I'm sure. 73°N - 125°E by the Lena River delta in Russia. 71°N - 142°E in the Sakha Republic, Russia. You don't see them everywhere because they only form if you have permafrost, fairly flat ground, a sufficient prevailing wind and the right soil type. Furthermore, the bays couldn't have been formed by an impact. In order to form the their alignment pattern, the impact point would need to be so distant that any debris that flew far enough would have had to have been throw very high, then come almost straight down and would therefore leave round, not oval craters. And if they had somehow been caused by low angle impacts, there would be debris cones coming off of every bay on the side away from the impact, which we don't see. And there's no shatter cones or shocked quartz. I don't get paid to science, I do it for love, so I don't know if I'm one of those " "scientists" " you referred to. But I didn't refuse to look at your questions and I tried to answer them as best I could. I hope it helps.
@@Antonio_Zamora They can't be impact sites. The three large ovals can not have formed in exactly the same second since mathematicly the probability of three object striking simultainiusly is impossible. Even a second or two delay of the impacts would have creating more material overlapping between the ovals. The ovality is caused by substrate pressure exerting a boundary to the bubble from below. Also the wind or the slope can create ovalities. Just mix some chocolate pudding. Put an pipe in it and low an bubble with the bowl at an angel and see what happens.
@@mossig Correction: They are not ovals. They are ellipses, as can be shown by fitting the rims with ellipses by the least squares method. And, yes, they overlap prolifically, as discussed in this video: th-cam.com/video/nLsb0U70Vdk/w-d-xo.html
Definitional inquiry: Is a "meteor strike" or meteorite limited to a primary stony/iron projectile or does it include secondary projectiles such as ice?
A quick primer as you seem new to Antonio's work. It is proposed one or several cometary fragments impacted the Americas, an event happening at the time of the Younger Dryas period 12 900 years BP. Around the Great Lakes area, which was covered in an ice sheet, one or several cometary airbursts hit the ice, ejecting ice boulders which flew through the air, and where the ice chucks landed on sandy or boggy ground they formed Carolina Bays or Nebraska rainwater basins.
@@curtisnixon5313 Does it just throw ice to make the crater or is there a hydrometric factor (melting the ice to water applying hydrometric pressure) in creating the craters?
Thanks once again Mr Zamora. Such a fascinating and neglected topic.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Thank you, keep working.
I've accidently created these types of impact craters far before I discovered your hypothesis. And this is why I believe your hypotheses is correct. I noticed at the beach when a wave recedes there is a moment when the sand has the perfect water to sand ratio. If you drop small amounts of water with or without a sand mixture, the impact makes these very ridges. Of course the shape was round because the droplets fell directly perpendicular to the surface. But when I saw these examples, I did not doubt that falling ice and dirt can fall on swampy marsh and make these shapes.
I recommend may sceptics to your work.
An excellent presentation. I had to slow down the playback speed a little, but it was certainly worth the effort.
Right on the 12.8 ka mark in my science book! Thank you for the excellent science Antonio! Happy Holiday!
This is great! I've been waiting for a stratigraphic discussion or presentation.
The tens of thousands of years of undisturbed stratigraphy on top of the bays makes any connection with the YD comet strike impossible, or indeed any idea that makes them all the same age.
You need to become familiar with Viscous Relaxation. It is the geological process that makes cavities less deep and mountains less prominent. It also can restore the stratigraphy in a viscous medium. th-cam.com/video/k0KV5H6f7vU/w-d-xo.html
I moved to South Carolina last week... Lol. I'll be visiting some of the bays for sure.
Plan your trip using the LiDAR visualization tool by Michael Davias for Google Earth: lidar-hrtm.cintos.org/
@@Antonio_Zamora as I was driving recently using a GPS app, I thought of how cool it would be to have a LiDAR overlay for GPS so you could visualize when you're driving through a bay.
Wonderful. Thank you!
Reminds me of a ~90 year old lady, long ago, she always ate pie, cake, and other sugar treats. Drag them puppies through the mud. I don't know, seems obvious to me. And, what force holds this mathematical shape over all this time and how do they communicate with each other to align radially, essentially parallel. People must be reading Fiction too much, not on this planet. It is sort of like taking pictures of the concentric circles of a rock tossed in the water, at your perspective, they show the mathematics of ellipses . You are seeing the end of its energy being dispelled, frozen in time.
i may not understand too much about geology and such, but this video proves the exception!
That is the power of describing geology with a cheese sandwich. 🙂
I'm hungry for more.
Like the lidar data you use in these videos have you run across any ground penetrating radar data?
BTW. There was just an impact recorded on mars. It was multiple objects. And it made these shapes. You must check it out. Happened in the last 6 months.
Thank you for this presentation.
Right, I'm off to the bakery then.
Home run! Out of the ball park!
Cheers !
I am now even more interested and craving sweets, BRAVO 🙌
great video!
Banded chert looks just like this on tiny scale. Folded mud clumps.
Antonio, I recently heard the lecture by Chris Cottrell discussing his idea of the bays being much older than the YD due to the ancient shore line erasing any bay formations near Myrtle Beach. Have you made a video addressing this theory and if so, I apologize if I have overlooked it.
I hope you and your family had a good holiday season and thank you so much for your hard work.
Cheers
Chris and I have made several videos with our diverging proposals for the age of the Carolina Bays. I have always thought that the tremendous energy of the ballistic sedimentation of the ejecta curtain would have killed all the fauna within 1500 km from the ET impact site which would have triggered an extinction event. Here is a video where I discuss contextual dating of the bays. th-cam.com/video/aHTbVqCPBrA/w-d-xo.html
a small but not insignificant number of basins are present below those paleo-shorelines.
I say you have established your theory as fact. Only bias can deny your proof. I have to get some of that cake.
Thank you. Maybe a couple of core samples looking for shatter cones would be helpful. Any iridium? Timing as detected so far is interesting.
The saturated ground was liquefied by the impacts that created the Carolina Bays. There was not enough resistance to create shock structures. If the projectiles were made of glacier ice there would be no siderophile elements. One instance of shocked-fractured quartz was reported: th-cam.com/video/K434-CP0FEk/w-d-xo.html
the only issue with your inclined conical cavity suggestion is that it necessitates giant tidal waves of sandy mud having occurred *during* the ice boulder bombardment, yet all geologic dating and analysis indicate these dunes were there for many 1000s of years prior to the YD. the simplest explanation is that the CB are superficial craters formed as the impactors' violent, hypersonic shock waves collapsed onto the surface and pushed the top few layers of soil from the center outward, resulting in shallow raised rims. this theory better explains features like "Big Bay" where apparently intruding dunes pre-date the YD. the resulting shockwave from the impactor that landed at the center of Big Bay was simply unable to "push" the massive dunes that encroach the western portion of that basin and this would still be congruent with a YD origin.
From this, shouldn't a core sample from the center of the bays eventually indicate a very large disparity in age from the surface and going down?
I would suspect the largest bays have the greatest disparity as they should've had the deepest impacts. At the one minute mark in your video the geologist mentions getting to MIS6 in the time scale. So why wouldn't a core sample from the center of a bay show a jump in time from 13ka to 100ka?
Inside the bay, during viscous relaxation, material from various layers seep in from the sides and below, almost back to the surface level. I wouldn't want to base a conclusion from such a randomised sample, would you?
In fact the tens of thousands of years' worth of undisturbed stratigraphy (soil layers) on top of the bays demonstrates any theory claiming them produced simultaneously and recently is instantly falsified. They are not plausibly produced by wind, but that does not mean the next idea to surface is right. Both are wrong, and the actual cause remains a mystery.
@@Akio-fy7ep Please indicate the soil samples you are using from inside bays for this conclusion.
@@Argrouk Then you should have a layer of inconsistent dating but eventually one would reach the layer of consistent dating.
@@neohermitist Which is exactly what we see. Don't mistake cores taken from the centre with those taken from the rims, they are different processes.
Elementary Watson. It is so obvious when explained. But it will still be too much for many. Just add water and shake, simple.
So how about finding someone who owns the land where you would best expect we could find evidence by drilling/excavation and sampling and start a fundraising program to directly address some of these questions.
Just the overlapping sediment date's would show that the bottom is on the top and there's only a few ways that can happen.
I believe it's a important thing to know about especially if true it would explain many dramatic changes that occurred around the time proposed in and around the younger drias.
The exploration of the Carolina Bays will need to be an organized project with wide support. The first priority should be to date cores from the rims of many Carolina Bays to establish that they are indeed impact structures with inverted stratigraphy. Right now, many geologists oppose the impact hypothesis.
@@Antonio_Zamora yes but we can't entirely discount an impact origin if inverted stratigraphy isn't consistently found in these rims. the surficial impact cratering hypothesis (like Prouty suggested) suggests the top few layers of soil would've been blown outwards from the center and created raised rims and may not have even involved lifting and overturning a "flap" of soil near the periphery of the bays.
I wish I would have known this 40 years ago when I was growing up around the Carolina bays and thought they were just swamps
I grew up in southwest Georgia and some areas have what we believed were swamps or old farm ponds with trees growing in them will have to take a look at LIDAR imagery!!!
Theres asteroid impact sites all over North America. In Wisconsin south of me a hour there is a county park, inside of a asteroid crater. You pan for gold there. Canada has huge craters. Most definitely debris the size of states went flying ☄️☄️☄️☄️☄️
Wouldn’t extream bombardment result n liquefaction of unconsolidated soil as per vibration/ earthquakes. Resulting in sediment settling by weight ??? Specifically if melting of the Lauretide started much earlier
A Z is of that view as I recall. And I agree as liquefaction is a thing.
Of course it was ice, no meteroites have ever been found nor exist at the bottom of these, earth would look identical to Mars if not for the vegetation and water on the surface
there are less craters on earth because earth is geologically active and has a thick atmosphere
how many people have honestly excavated a Carolina Bay hundreds of feet down?
These "scientists" who continue to insist that these radially oriented perfectly elliptical features were created by wind and water erosion must be made to find and catalog other features around the globe that have radially oriented perfectly elliptical shapes.
Erosion from rivers, ancient shore lines from ancient lakes, deposited sediments from ancient rivers behave the very same way all around the world. Therefore, radially oriented perfectly elliptical features must be found everywhere on the planet, if wind and water erosion is the mechanism for the formation of the Carolina Bays.
However, no such features that are radially oriented and with perfect elliptical shapes can be found anywhere else on Earth. That means that these features, found in the eastern and central United States were created by an unusual and unique process.
Impacts from ballistically launched bodies, so far, is the only process that can adequately explain the perfectly elliptical radially oriented features, and that can, in laboratory demonstrations, REPEAT and REPLICATE radially oriented perfectly elliptical features.
If the "scientists" can't find radially oriented perfectly elliptical features anywhere else on Earth, then something very different happened in that one place to make those features.
These "scientists" who refuse to look at or answer these questions are NOT scientists. They are religious zealots who fiercely defend their religion of the Church of Non-Catastrophic Uniformitarian Geology.
Randall Carlson says, that uniformitarian geology is valid, but that the geologists refuse to accept that there have been times when the Earth had suffered enormous sudden geological changes from time to time throughout its existence.
Agreed, some are just too lazy to learn new things. The whole point of science is to keep improving! Why would closed minded people be interested?
I think impacts have had a huge effect on Earth's geology but the evidence says that ain't what made the Carolina bays. Here's a quick explanation. During the ice age, the ground along much of the east coast of North America was permafrost. That means all but the very top layer remained frozen all year round. Shallow lakes form on flat ground over permafrost during the summer. The prevailing winds push the water which gets deflected to each side by the shore of the lake. Two swirls are formed in the lake, one on each side, which then erodes the sides leaving an oval shaped lake with the long axis perpendicular to the prevailing wind. You want me to find similar features somewhere else? Are three other places enough for you? The same shapes actively being formed now in Alaska and Siberia. Look for yourself on google earth.
70°N - 155°W by the town of Atqasuk, Alaska. A delightful place, I'm sure.
73°N - 125°E by the Lena River delta in Russia.
71°N - 142°E in the Sakha Republic, Russia.
You don't see them everywhere because they only form if you have permafrost, fairly flat ground, a sufficient prevailing wind and the right soil type.
Furthermore, the bays couldn't have been formed by an impact. In order to form the their alignment pattern, the impact point would need to be so distant that any debris that flew far enough would have had to have been throw very high, then come almost straight down and would therefore leave round, not oval craters. And if they had somehow been caused by low angle impacts, there would be debris cones coming off of every bay on the side away from the impact, which we don't see. And there's no shatter cones or shocked quartz.
I don't get paid to science, I do it for love, so I don't know if I'm one of those " "scientists" " you referred to. But I didn't refuse to look at your questions and I tried to answer them as best I could. I hope it helps.
Maybe they are Methane explosions.
Nice try! Explain the mathematically elliptical geometry and the radial alignment.
@@Antonio_Zamora They can't be impact sites. The three large ovals can not have formed in exactly the same second since mathematicly the probability of three object striking simultainiusly is impossible. Even a second or two delay of the impacts would have creating more material overlapping between the ovals. The ovality is caused by substrate pressure exerting a boundary to the bubble from below. Also the wind or the slope can create ovalities. Just mix some chocolate pudding. Put an pipe in it and low an bubble with the bowl at an angel and see what happens.
@@mossig Correction: They are not ovals. They are ellipses, as can be shown by fitting the rims with ellipses by the least squares method. And, yes, they overlap prolifically, as discussed in this video: th-cam.com/video/nLsb0U70Vdk/w-d-xo.html
Where is your directional debris field or are you implying you can have a meteor strike without one?
Definitional inquiry: Is a "meteor strike" or meteorite limited to a primary stony/iron projectile or does it include secondary projectiles such as ice?
A quick primer as you seem new to Antonio's work. It is proposed one or several cometary fragments impacted the Americas, an event happening at the time of the Younger Dryas period 12 900 years BP. Around the Great Lakes area, which was covered in an ice sheet, one or several cometary airbursts hit the ice, ejecting ice boulders which flew through the air, and where the ice chucks landed on sandy or boggy ground they formed Carolina Bays or Nebraska rainwater basins.
@@curtisnixon5313 Does it just throw ice to make the crater or is there a hydrometric factor (melting the ice to water applying hydrometric pressure) in creating the craters?
@@jamesmacdonald5556 The models in these videos have always been cracked ice or ice cubes. No melting or reshaping of the ice.
Take a look at the Convergence video: th-cam.com/video/DzAu-XE29qc/w-d-xo.html
You might have to go with puppets.
Huge respect to Randall Carlson for bringing attention to this. Otherwise they would have remained neglected and ignored
Actually, the Carolina Bays have been seriously discussed since 1933. Probably before Randall was born.
Wondering if the intelligence behind The Mystery Drones knows what the Dryas period was all about.
"The Science" community is doing everything it can to avoid using B.C.
Baby Jess is overrated.....
@@28704joe grow up