Astonishing Image of Carolina Bays

The image below is from the Bennettsville, South Carolina region. More Carolina bays here.

20120404-213215.jpg

  • Jim Coyle

    George; This is as close to subject as I can find. I have a question for you and or anyone who may wish to respond. If the CB’s are an ejected based phenomenon, Why aren’t there any rocks or stones infused in the sand matrix? In all the articles I have read there is no mention of any rocks or stones. I would think if this is ejecta then there should also be some rocks and stones in the mix. Just asking.

  • Casual visitor

    Excellent observation. Smart questions lead to discoveries. The answer to your question is straightforward: because no rocks nor stones impacted. The secondary ejecta contained no solids, which means that it was ejecta made of ice. Practically pure water.

  • Jim Coyle

    Casual visitor; for that much sand to have deposited over the expanse that was covered there had to have been some gravels involved. Maybe I’m overthinking this, wouldn’t be the first time.

  • Casual visitor

    The sand was already there as ordinary terrain. What makes you think that the sand was deposited ?

  • Jim Coyle

    I’ve been working under the assumption that is a depositional event as there is no alike bedrock from which these sands could originate. The only place in the America that has sand even close to the quality of the Bays sand is in Michigan, so my thought is that the Carolina Bays sands aren’t from the Carolinas nor anywhere else on the east coast or washed in from the Atlantic.

  • Casual visitor

    I presume that by ‘quality’ you mean purity ? Or perhaps composition ? As far as I know, the sand in Bays is pure quartz. Quartz is everywhere.
    Michigan is the focal point of the Bays, their origin, so yes, there is a direct relation. But, it was not sand that was deposited. Rather, it was made pure on the spot during the event.
    Thank you for the remark on sand quality in Michigan. This is another excellent observation from you. Well done.

  • Jim Coyle

    CV; By quality I do mean purity. Composition would have to be determined through testing both the Michigan and Carolina sands. Yes quartz is everywhere but is it the natural stone for the entire east coastal range only on the eastern side of the Appalachian range. Quartz does make up a large portion of the Michigan basin hence my idea and that of others is that the Carolina Bays sand is from Michigan and not created insitu.

  • Casual visitor

    Your previous two observations were excellent, but this idea of you and others is simply wrong.

    First, how do you explain the method of transportation for all that sand ?

    Second, the shear amount of Carolina sands is too large. There is no hole in Michigan large enough to be the source of all of it.

    Third, presuming that you can solve the questions one and two, then you would have to explain, why would there be such purity of sand in Michigan in the first place ? What process could have made it ?

    Fourth, by no means is possible to have sand to be delivered pure in Bays only, but not on the rims and outside. Dust settles down in layers, not in spots.

    Especially it cannot excavate material from a hole and then fill it. Where is the excavated material then ? In rims ? Too small.

    I find the notion that sands were transported as absolute nonsense. Kindergarten logic.

    On the other hand, if you analyze the soil in Bays and outside, you will realize that the only difference is that there is a thorough lack of organics in Bays.

    The only thing that could have come from Michigan is water. Water was in form of pool-sized droplets, which interacted with soil upon impact. Add oxygen, high pressure and temperature, and organics are eliminated.

    What was left was pure sand, because it is an oxide with a sufficiently high melting temperature, obviously not reached during this raining.

    Now, if you really want to do something constructive, try studying the conditions that can purify the regular soil from outside Bays to become the same as in Bays.

    Steam, air, motion, soil, pressure, and temperature are the ingredients. I am surprised that in the land full of internal combustion engines nobody figured this out, long time ago. Correct me if I am wrong by pointing to a paper that examined in details this possibility…

    As for the presence of sandy, unconsolidated soils, it is perfectly normal to find them in coastal areas, and in front of ice sheets. They are sediments brought there by winds and water.

  • Jim Coyle

    CV; Here is a cross of a feature called the Michigan Basin. It’s over 14,000 ft deep and covers the entire lower peninsula. I’m working under the same premise as Michael Davias in that the the Carolina Bays were deposited as the ejecta from a cosmic impact over the Michigan lower peninsula. Due to its high melt temp quartz is the only product left after the cosmic air burst with its sun surface temps. My personal theory on the elliptical nature of the bays is that when the superheated sand slurry came back down to earth and made contact with the normal temp earth the water content of the soils went to steam and escaped as steam bubbles before the slurry had a chance to fully set up thus creating the forms you see today. The rims you see are the result of the bubble bursting as the slurry was still settling into place. If you look up the Michigan basin there are plenty of images and drawings to view. Also look up Mr. Davias at Cintos.com

  • Casual visitor

    If you believe in things like that, you have a lot to learn. Mr Davias is also wrong on many levels, but I am not going to elaborate this any more hereby, as it seems that it is pointless.

    Instead, I can only suggest that you and others visit the http://pdc.iaaweb.org/?q=content/past-conferences and educate yourself about the issues of planetary defense. Papers and videos of many presentations are available. When Mr Cintos presents there, that would be something. Until then, it is kindergarten logic.

    Or perhaps you can address my previously stated issues with your theory with some meaningful answers ?

  • Casual visitor

    Appologies. I meant Mr Davias, not Mr Cintos.

  • Steve Garcia

    @Casual visitor
    August 27, 2016 at 1:43 pm
    “The sand was already there as ordinary terrain. What makes you think that the sand was deposited ?”

    We could ask, why what makes you think it was there in the first place.

    The deposits are not in normal sand deposition locations. It’s laying on the surface limits it’s time scale to YOUNG, too young to have been deposited by alluvial or aeolian from any shoreline.

    They are also up to and exceeding 40 meters deep.

    They are also so pure of quartz sand that they use it to make clear glass – without any pre-processing. That is a rarity. But not everywhere. Sands near Saginaw also have that quality.

    The sands are also amazingly consistent size-wise. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but the range is VERY small – smaller than in aeolian or alluvial, both of which are stratified in terms of larger grains at the bottom and gradually increasing with less depth.

    So, if the only options are ejecta or aeolian or alluvial, ejecta has a very solid claim. Neither of those do.

  • Steve Garcia

    Casual visitor –

    You sound like an academic who doesn’t have the balls to identify yourself. Everything you say is straight line uniformitarian and anti-neo-catastrophe.

    So, come on, identify yourself, instead of hiding.

    But you are welcome here. Tough questions need to be asked, and why would we want to avoid them? We have to answer them sooner or later. But please understand that this is all in transition, while yours has been built up on the shoulders of others for a century and half. Those shoulders belong to mostly people filling in the gaps since Lyell and Agassiz et al, back in the 1840s-1880s. BY which time most of the old line catastrophists had died off. So your side won by attrition. That is common knowledge.

    You SOUND like you would be David Meltzer. who is a “professional shitter” – a scientist who doesn’t do science himself, only goes around shitting on other people’s non-prevailing-paradigm ideas. From Clovis to the YDB to other areas, I’ve seen him as a life-long kibitzer, not having the balls to do something himself – that others might shit on. “Oh no! A new idea! We have to shit on it and tamp it out, before our entire science is in chaos!”

  • Steve Garcia

    Casual visitor –
    “Second, the shear amount of Carolina sands is too large. There is no hole in Michigan large enough to be the source of all of it.”

    Do you have actual numbers on this, or are you hip shooting it? As in speculating.

    I suspect the latter.

  • Casual visitor

    I have no idea who is David Meltzer. Certainly not me.
    As for identity, I prefer not to use my name in comments, because they often turn into troll wars and cover various topics, not normally linked with my primary work. I prefer that when someone Googles out my name gets a list of papers, not a list of comments in blogs. Sorry for that.

    If you wished for me to talk with you, I prefer that you do not use YELLING, as you have a habit to do. Plain netiquette is against it.

    Personal attacks and words like ‘shitting’ are trolling. I am not going to stoop on that level and would ignore your comments if you continue to use them.

    Furthermore, if you think that my comments here were uniformitarian, try reading them again, several times if necessary. From the top of this session, preferably.

    You can also try to address my questions. The first one first.

    Then, we can discuss numbers.

    But, you added a new data, about a depth of sand of 40 m and of stratification by size. All this corroborates my earlier claims. Thank you.

  • Jim Coyle

    CV; It’s apparent that we don’t agree. Oh well! Would you please pass on to me why you feel that the bays are a natural fixture vs a transported one. I’m always interested in hearing another point of view. So if you have the time and or inclination could you give me a synopsis of your thinking on this matter. I’m not here to snipe or troll, just to learn through discourse and debate.

  • Steve Garcia

    Asserting someone is wrong is not yelling.

    I just didn’t play the rope-a-dope you played on Jim, softening him up with praise before hammering everything he was saying. It took you all of four comments to come up with, “…his idea of you and others is simply wrong.” Then you assert things with no evidence, taking one side and assuming – asserting – that this is all claptrap.

    BTW, if you think that I am even remotely hyperventilating or hypo-ventilating over your threat to hold your breath, think again. We get along fine without you jumping all over Jim with your cryptic and unsubstantiated assertions.

    There – see? No “shitting” comments at all. But how about put up or shut up?

    Q1: “First, how do you explain the method of transportation for all that sand ?”
    A1: An ejecta curtain. Read your Davias. I even have a mechanism for how it occurred inside the crater. A real-world mechanism.

    Q2: “Second, the shear amount of Carolina sands is too large. There is no hole in Michigan large enough to be the source of all of it.”
    A2: Do you even know what either volume is? My guess is that you didn’t do due diligence and are faking it.

    Q3:”Third, presuming that you can solve the questions one and two, then you would have to explain, why would there be such purity of sand in Michigan in the first place ? What process could have made it?”
    A3: Weak. You DO know that it is not the duty of any new concept to explain EVERY aspect of the hypothesis, don’t you? Read your Kuhn, on paradigms and paradigm shifts. Also, Jim is not the maker of any of those hypotheses, and the people you should be addressing it to are Davias and Firestone, etc. It’s not Jim’s place to explain for them. If you have a problem with Davias’ work take it up with Michael. I do it all the time.

    Q4:”Fourth, by no means is possible to have sand to be delivered pure in Bays only, but not on the rims and outside. Dust settles down in layers, not in spots.”
    A4: This one is simply terrifically ill-informed. No one – especially not Davias – has asserted such a thing. DO you have a reading comprehension problem? Or just never got to it? Even the work of Christopher Moore (an eolian-ist) shows the sand draped over in his transects.

    Questions dealt with. Ya got nuttin’.

  • Steve Garcia

    On Q3 – the sands in Michigan ARE that pure, in places. Nobody has to explain it – they just turn it into glass and turn it into profits. Real world things, profits.

    Hey, we don’t have an explanation for gravity, either, but we us it every second of every day. They worked on this one so long that tehy ran out of ideas. No one has touched it for probably over half a century or more.

    Also, electrical power – no one knows how an electron moving from one shell in one atom or molecule creates a motive force. But we plug into the wall and use it every day. They worked on this one for so long they gave up, too.

    (That usually means that their fundamental understandings are flawed. But don’t tell Commonwealth Edison or someone running a pile driving machine. I literally dropped my theoretical science ambitions when I found out that I could ask questions at age 17 that they couldn’t answer. YOU should have seen the look on my face! I concluded that if they weren’t THAT far ahead of me, they had nothing to offer me.)

  • George Howard

    Im not cool with “Shi#ting” either and plan to delete it. Take deep breath Steve, C Visitor is a guest.

  • Casual visitor

    Thank you George.

    I could continue to debate with Jim, as he apparently wishes me to do it, and present another view on the YDB event, but not if that means that I am going to be harassed by hysterical rants.

    Steve:’We get along fine without you jumping all over Jim with your cryptic and unsubstantiated assertions.’

    I can say the same. We were getting along fine until Steve came all over me with his insults, like ‘reading comprehension problem’, and unsubstantiated assertions.

    Anyway, I am not going to waste my time on troll wars.
    Steve: ‘Put up or shut up.’
    Yup, but comment fields are not the proper place for one to properly present theories.

    If one has something impact related to say, a planetary defense conference would be a suitable place for that. It is not peer reviewed, but the abstracts are reviewed for suitability and papers are required to be written.

    I used terms ‘wrong’ and ‘kindergarten logic’, which are polite, not insulting, and I used them sparingly.

    I also used praises when deserved, and I used them abundantly.

    And for that I am accused of ‘rope-a-dope’ (what’s that ?), ‘softening’ (I give credit when credit is due), ‘hammering everything that he said'(the opposite is true, I hammered only the theory of Davias, but I have praised the two observations of Jim. Huge difference!)

    But, Steve used terms that belong to a toilet, and thus should be flushed for the sake of decency. He is still YELLING, by the way (using all caps), and he does that all the time.

    He also uses unsupported claims and accuses me of having them. (Steve, A1: ‘I even have a mechanism for how it occurred inside the crater. A real-world mechanism.’) Of course, he never provides that mechanism, while he ignores that I actually explained what I was talking about, but he called that ‘cryptic’ and accused me of having ‘reading comprehension problems’.

    So to explain once more:
    We agree that it is an ejecta blanket. I confirm that. The difference is that Davias claims that sand was ejected, while I claim that only pure ice was ejected. In terms of energy release that is a big difference.

    Steve also uses rhetorical questions followed by defamatory guesses that he then uses to falsely discredit the work of others, like:
    A2: Do you even know what either volume is? My guess is that you didn’t do due diligence and are faking it.

    My question implied that I know the answer of, but he answered with a rhetorical question, implying that he does not know the answer, but accused me of not knowing the answer, where it is him that does not know it.
    That is called ‘spinning’.

    He also uses blatant lies:
    Steve: ‘If you have a problem with Davias’ work take it up with Michael. I do it all the time.’ Lie. He never posted any negative comment in his typical style on papers written by Davias.

    Hereby he also denies me the right to comment on the work of others, except directly to them. That is a violation of my freedom of speech. It is not my job to peer review their work, but if they are mentioned in a conversation that I am having I can state my professional opinion if I can provide one.

    Steve: ‘Ya got nuttin’. This is another spin, as I only asked questions, not offered an elaborated theory. That dismissive sentence actually described his answers to my questions.

    By the way, Davias and Firestone have opposing theories, one of several in circulation. All of them substantially differ, so at best one of them is correct, while the others are wrong. Time will tell which one.

    My apologies for the long post, which is a deviation from the subject, a personal counter-attack in a fight of trolls. Most of it should be deleted. It is distasteful.

    I will not reply any further in this thread.

  • Steve Garcia

    George – What the heck?

    This guy came along telling Jim:
    “… but this idea of you and others is simply wrong.”

    I said he sounded like he might be Meltzer, who DOES go around crapping on other’s orginal work.

    And I never said sh*tting again toward the guy. Go through the comments and see.

    And THEN I addressed the four questions he put to Jim.

    George, don’t be siding with this dude, please. He is asserting that I am yelling because I disagree with him.

    Give me a clue what is the problem here, because I don’t see it. It’s not me. This guy is sensitive in the extreme and doesn’t respond when I do answer the questions.

    On Q4, the guy completely made something up about the sands around the CBs. I responded in my normal, “Why are you making stuff up for?” In nobody’s work is it asserted or discovered that the sand is only within the CBs.

    He asserts that I am yelling: “He is still YELLING, by the way (using all caps), and he does that all the time.”

    Here are my ALL CAPS in this entire thread:

    “You SOUND like you would be David Meltzer.”
    “On Q3 – the sands in Michigan ARE that pure, in places.”
    “It’s laying on the surface limits it’s time scale to YOUNG…”
    “You DO know that it is not the duty of any new concept to explain EVERY aspect of the hypothesis, don’t you?”
    “…concluded that if they weren’t THAT far ahead of me”

    George, you tell me which if any of those are objectionable or yelling. Emphasis is not yelling.

    Then this guy goes into 1,000 word essay attacking me.

    What is going on here, George?

  • Steve Garcia

    Ay yi yi.

    Calmly, without the “s-word” and without ALL CAPS:

    “He also uses blatant lies:
    Steve: ‘If you have a problem with Davias’ work take it up with Michael. I do it all the time.’ Lie. He never posted any negative comment in his typical style on papers written by Davias.”

    Again with the reading comprehension problem, dude. I didn’t say I took up everything with Davias here. I email with Davias from time to time. There is no lie to it at all. Don’t read stuff in that isn’t there. I just emailed with him two weeks or so ago.

    “Steve: ‘Ya got nuttin’. This is another spin, as I only asked questions, not offered an elaborated theory.”

    Uh, no, you haven’t only asked questions. You have asserted things like:

    1. “The sand was already there as ordinary terrain.” An assertion, not a question.

    2. “Second, the shear amount of Carolina sands is too large. There is no hole in Michigan large enough to be the source of all of it.” An assertion, not a a question.

    3. “Especially it cannot excavate material from a hole and then fill it.” That is also an assertion, based on what?

    4. “I find the notion that sands were transported as absolute nonsense. Kindergarten logic.” Another assertion, not a question. And an insult.

    5. “On the other hand, if you analyze the soil in Bays and outside, you will realize that the only difference is that there is a thorough lack of organics in Bays.” Another assertion, not a question.

    6. “The only thing that could have come from Michigan is water. Water was in form of pool-sized droplets, which interacted with soil upon impact. Add oxygen, high pressure and temperature, and organics are eliminated. What was left was pure sand, because it is an oxide with a sufficiently high melting temperature, obviously not reached during this raining.” Four assertions, not questions.

    7. “Now, if you really want to do something constructive, try studying the conditions that can purify the regular soil from outside Bays to become the same as in Bays.” An instruction for Jim, not a question.

    8. “Steam, air, motion, soil, pressure, and temperature are the ingredients.” An assertion, not a question.

    9. ” I am surprised that in the land full of internal combustion engines nobody figured this out, long time ago. Correct me if I am wrong by pointing to a paper that examined in details this possibility.” An opinion, not a question.

    10. “As for the presence of sandy, unconsolidated soils, it is perfectly normal to find them in coastal areas, and in front of ice sheets. They are sediments brought there by winds and water.” another assertion, not a question.

    All of those were in one comment. Not questions – assertions and opinions.

    and none of it is anything but stuff in your head that you think are true. Some of it is connected to a uniformitarian reality, and some is your thoughts and only your thoughts.

    No, you didn’t offer any “elaborate theory”. In fact, except for tidbits, you haven’t said much at all.

    What is it you are beating around the bush about?

  • Steve Garcia

    “Steve also uses rhetorical questions followed by defamatory guesses that he then uses to falsely discredit the work of others, like:
    A2: Do you even know what either volume is? My guess is that you didn’t do due diligence and are faking it.”

    Dude, you made an assertion – that the volume of Saginaw Bay wasn’t enough.

    Kindly inform us of what your numbers are on this point. You seem to know. Let us in on it, please. We’d actually like to know what you’ve found, with supporting data.

    Do you, in fact, know what either volume is? Nobody else does, so we would be in your debt.

  • Steve Garcia

    “I used terms ‘wrong’ and ‘kindergarten logic’, which are polite, not insulting, and I used them sparingly.”

    Sorry, dude, but “kindergarten logic” is most definitely an insult.

    “I also used praises when deserved, and I used them abundantly. . . but I have praised the two observations of Jim.”

    So, which is it? “Abundant praise”? Or “two observations of Jim”?

    Do two constitute “abundant”?

    I’d only noticed two “praises”, before you ripped into what Jim had said – in this sentence:
    “Your previous two observations were excellent, but this idea of you and others is simply wrong.”

    Then you went into your four questions, which I later rebutted. Without yelling, and ending with, “You got nuttin'”

    And you don’t. You seem moderately informed, but you draw conclusions that may or may not be true, and when I question your thinking, I am accused of yelling. Instead of responding to my rebuttals, you go whining to George.