Surprised I missed this when it was publicized in 2005. Deep in South Carolina bay country a sand quarry is giving up entire trees — 40,000 year old trees. Many of the logs have their root balls attached. And all are covered by ten meters of brilliant white sand.
Dear Tusk:
One of the more interesting remarks in this paper is the following:
“The recovery of well preserved baldcypress logs from two separate deposits of late Pleistocene age in South Carolina raises many interesting research questions. The most immediate question concerns the genesis of the buried white sand layer and the many large subfossil cypress logs it contains. Does the white sand unit represent a single depositional event or a slow process of accumulation over centuries to millennia of time?” – p25
– michael
Cintos –
My 0.324 cents worth:
As I understand it, sand is usually formed on beaches and riverine formations, one little accumulation at a time. That is the uniformitarian POV.
IMHO, one thing must be true: All of that 40+ feet of sand was not formed at that location. If this understanding of mine is true, then somehow the sand got transported and deposited from some previous deposit(s). That suggests something toward the non-uniformitarian school of thought – i.e., a tsunami or something relatively equivalent.
It might be informative to see what the recent tsunamis have done in terms of moving sand deposits around and depositing them. I know that a large area of downtown Banda Aceh in 2004 was scoured almost clean, with sand left where buildings and trees used to be. This was VERY impressive for me. Certainly, any sand present on beaches will be “slurried” into the water flow and won’t settle out until the turbulence dies down.
Intuitively, I would tend to think that deep sand deposits and loess have similar genesises. Also that the built up (down?) deposits are similar to glacial till and the deep gravel deposits in the northern U.S. Midwest. Similar does not mean identical, though.
What Ice Agers see as moraines from mountainous ice caps over Canada and the north central U.S. I see as mega-tsunami deposits. After all, there are no such gravel deposits/moraines in northern Siberia, which supposedly was victim of the same Ice Age.
The bottom line is this:
You asked a very good question, one the uniformitarians have a pat answer for – and an answer I don’t agree with.
At 40,000 years of age, its old enough not to alarm anyone, unlike a more recent event say 13,000 years ago.
Also – it is pretty certain that tree ring studies on the paleo-climate are not bring done, including gaining data on long term regular patterns of solar variability.
And it occured to me looking at the latest from the Hudson River Valley – you have to consider that a landslide in the Canaries may be responsible for these deposits.
Thus triangulation needs to be done to determine their cause.
In the extreme north west corner of Washington County Alabama a friend of mine told me that they found a pine stump about 30 feet underground while excavating to build a pond dam on his property. The land is very sandy all through western Washington County. I don’t know the exact location , but is is near the Aquilla community.. On my family’s property farther south and west of Vinegar Bend , My brother was drilling a well for his camp and discovered wood charcoal 18 ft underground. About 600 ft south of there I uncovered a flint indian arrow head about four ft underground while digging a hole in an old field. I found no other artifacts there. No pieces of flint , pottery , charcoal,bones or any other signs of early life. There were no rocks or clay only very sandy soil and one arrowhead. The lay of the land is a gentle slope, Not enough for weather to erode the field. It may drop 10 feet over a distance of 600 feet. I tell you this because it raises a question in my mind of when the sand was deposited and could human life existed when it happened ?
The “sand” would be the same as that underlying Carolina Bays? Is there a good map of the total area where the sand is found? If it’s in Alabama then this not a coastal or Piedmont matter. Perhaps the volume is greater than estimated by Michael Davias, according to whom Saginaw Bay volume is adequate for the total. Also, has a geochemical analysis been done to locate the source? Not sure this works for pure quartz sand. Does this large volume of quartz point to the Canadian shield as its region of origin (ignoramus asking many questions).
About that downed forest….
Whenever the CBays were deposited (probably 100+ka before YDB if Michael Davias’ latest CBay age bracketing evidence is correct), it has already been acknowledged to lay over several different Geologic formations and was likely from a single emplacement event (Douglas Johnson?, 1942, http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ocb/ or http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbaymenu.html). The monolithic blanket of sand in which the CBays exist shows several distinctive features that clearly indicate possible descent from exoatmospheric sub-orbital trajectory as distal ejecta from a large cosmic impact.
This is hard to interpret for anyone accustomed to terrestrial scale Geologic process. Its hard for most folks period. It involves thousands of cubic kilometers (km^3 * 1000+) of superheated ejecta from a cratering process being launched out of a deep crater (most of which was Ice Sheet and some of which was sand stone under that ice sheet) into an astronomically large hydrothermal explosion, being accelerated both vertically and horizontally to several km/sec as well as thermally energized by those two effects, drifting suborbitally as a giant cloud-sheet until reentry half a continent away, reentering the atmosphere in a frictional heating deceleration which transfers that thermal and kinetic energy into the atmosphere over the duration of the ejecta sheet reentering process, and during the upper atmospheric descent, changing the atmospheric conditions as a result on a subcontinental scale while the ejecta’s kinetic and heat is dumped into that airmass, the falling ejecta then freezing very cold during stratospheric descent before running into thicker air of the lower atmosphere and slowing down while more sand piles up on its back in the air column superhighway, encountering moisture in the troposphere and collecting that moisture through surface condensation while further slowing from the essentially static momentum of that accumulated moisture (which then further compounds the vertical chain reaction pile up effect), becoming cohesive as an overall blanket during terminal descent due to that accumulated (continental airmass) moisture, trapping voids or bubbles (entrainment) due to energization of the cohesive blanket in its epic battle against the trapped subcontinental air mass beneath it during that cohesive terminal descent, and finally reaching the surface where it changes from descent at an angle to horizontal, stretching all of the bubble voids by essentially the same trig function before they burst upon the cohesive blanket’s landing, forming bay rims in the bursting process.
Physical mechanics. Multi disciplinary. Breath slow and deep….
Clearly, the variation of CBay size may be a direct result of void coalescence during the tropospheric (lower) descent phase of the moistened and cohesive falling sand and is precisely log normal in distribution, as are many observable, naturally occurring distributions, including bubble coalescence phenomenon. Coincidence? Not likely. Here is the main reason: The CBay, over ten thousand of them, have major axes which all point toward the same central location (suggested primary impact site), but ONLY when those axial vectors are adjusted for the spin of the Earth during the ejecta flight time. The odds of that happening by chance for over ten thousand (10,000) individual, independently formed CBays are vanishingly small, EVEN if they were all formed by a similar wind pattern over much of the latitude of our present nation, which by itself is a pretty unlikely idea if you study wind and weather.
Coincidently, if you burst a bubble on a flat surface, the material in the bubble wall is deposited into the same distribution as the rim structures of the CBays.
Coincidently, if a bubble blanket is laid down at some angle to the horizontal, all of the voids will have the same elongated aspect ratio as a function of the lay-down angle,
and
Coincidently, all of the voids will all also tend to share the same heavier rim structures in the more distal direction from the original impact, because the more distal ejecta comes down first since laying down the blanket at some angle to the horizontal, from distal toward proximal w.r.t. that original impact site, causes material in the blanket to slosh in that downward sloping direction when the cohesive blanket is decelerated vertically from terminal descent at a some angle off horizontal upon reaching the surface.
Continuing….
There is a large trench missing out of Michigan, where coincidently the Glaciologists can’t find Glacier retreat evidence for the Saginaw lobe of the ice sheet, and further coincidently there is Helium 3 isotope at unusually high levels in that saginaw trench, along with megafractured subsurface layers and other features common to impact sites.
That’s a lot of coincidences: Log normal size distribution of a large population of similar features in the imprint, all axes pointed to one focus region but ONLY when accounting for Earths rotation during time of flight of distal ejecta, CBay rim structures matching flat surface scaled up bubble burst results both in aspect ratio and in rim thickening on the down-slope side of the descending blanket, multiple different impact-type phenomenon under Saginaw, and all of these things before even considering the monotonous uniformity and (extremely) remarkable lack of any or all terrigenous detritus deep within the bulk of the sand itself, which not only is in total contradiction to any wind/water-based model of formation for the CBays (No leaves. No dirt. No branches. No fossils. So seashells. No fish. No spent water bottles. Just pure quartz sand.) but is all completely and very neatly explained by the aerial delivery model for that sand. Coincidence?
Saginaw has an exposed layer of sandstone around the edges of that valley, and if the formation epoch is as now identified by Mr. Davias and his tireless effort on this task, some two miles of ice sheet depth may have been present in that area at during that epoch. That’s a two mile thick sheet of reactive armor available to transform or absorb much of the cratering energy of a rather large cosmic impact, to possibly leave relatively little impact scarring compared to the possible size/speed/energy of the impactor. This is of course if you consider the Saginaw valley, about 150 km by 350 km, as a relatively small crater. Interestingly, the impact may have been at a shallow angle. The truth is probably more like “we are completely unsure” due to the unknowns of that much ice being in the picture.
Clearly, some closer looks are necessary, on all of these fronts of research.
Missing Crater?
That much ice could amplify the impact shock effects upon solid surface beneath it for a steep angle impact. It could also greatly reduce the impact shock effects upon solid surface beneath it for a shallow angle impact. The most amazing thing about this part of the story is that no one is sure, because ice impacts are just coming into the arena of scientific estimation for normal (steep) angles, and the shallow angle impact case has been largely neglected in the development of modern cosmic impact cratering science! That I find particularly surprising, and is likely due to the fact that the NASA hypervelocity gun facility used to experiment in this realm doesn’t do shallow angle, so no one bothers to do numeric or analytical modeling where there is no experimental results available for comparison or contrast. But recent hydrocode modeling suggests that a shallow angle shot could definitely hold the key to minimal impact scarring, since its the vertical component of the projectile’s kinetic energy that is absorbed in the shallow angle hit, not total kinetic from 1/2*m*v^2 that we are taught in traditional high school physics.
This is a classic multi-variant, multi-disciplinary type of problem that is conceptually very tough to get one’s mind entirely around. Typically not solvable using the sole resources of any single scientific discipline, so no wonder it hasn’t been solved yet. The markings are clearly emplaced in the imprint, however, so it will all come to light eventually when the proper breed of multi-disciplinary scientist takes a detailed, open minded look at the entire picture. The GeoSpace scientist.
A key area of evidence will be the nature of the horizon below the sand. If it was emplaced in a single event or process, there should be evidence beneath the sand about what happened to put the sand there. About the emplacement process. If there were forests and other surface features that were suddenly and mercilessly blanketed by billions or trillions of tons of high density, very pure quartz sand, thats going to leave signatures about the delivery process. A felled forest of preserved trees is exactly the kind of signature we would expect. Clearly. Imagine the worst blizzard and the worst ice storm you can. Now combine those two types of storms, and things start getting ugly. Then multiply by 50 or 500 or 5000 for a feeling of the weight of 2 to 5 meters of high density pure quartz sand (yep, very ugly indeed). Then compress the duration of the ‘storm’ to a matter of mere minutes. Ouch.
Too ugly to imagine? Maybe.
Evidence? Yes, there should be plenty of evidence. That buried surface is going to show evidence of being blasted by gail force winds, crushed by a giant’s foot (the size of 5% of the surface of the continental U.S. and weighs as much as Rhode Island) and then sprayed up through the voids as they burst open and spread the sand out to form void rims. The highly compressed air underneath may have become heated from rapid pressure rise due to the astronomical weight of material in the air column reaching the surface, but not for long, as it would be quickly jetted out through every opening upon contact of that heavy blanket with the surface. Try to imagine it. Then imagine the evidence. From that open-minded conceptual exercise, imagery of flattened forests begin to materialize as a very basic, simple and highly anticipated result. Ugly monster storm. Astronomical energies. Use your imagination.
TH
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/visit-50000-year-old-underwater-primeval-forest-found-in-gulf-of-mexico-vid/25729/
why are these cypress only about 10000 years old ?
but this same cypress forest in Atlantic sates are 40000 years old?
I bet they were both tested in real scientific labs too hum ?
OOps he said 12000 years old..
so then the next logical questions which are not being asked are
if a large hurricane can destroy or is destroying all those trees in deep water why did they make it until today? as surely even smaller hurricanes would have destroyed them if the water was ever even shallower right ?
and thus how did they get buried in the first place if a hurricane unburied them ?
Is anyone going to this?
http://www.paleoamericanodyssey.com/
The burry, and submerge,them only required a catastrophic flood event perhaps more than one)at the end of the last Ice Age, followed by rising sea levels in the millenniums since.
The amount of time they stayed buried through countless storms since that time can be seen as hint of just how deeply they may have been buried in the first place.
and I’m confused ! so those ice floods deposited the same extra ordinary 40++_or more feet of sterile sands over not one but two mountain ranges , the Appalachian and blue ridge mountains too ?
so now that was one heck of a chunk of ice , pushing thousands ( maybe even 1/2 a mile? ) of feet of very sterile sand up a few mountain ranges! not hills but mountains ! dang now ! your hallucinating again! or the bible calls it vain imaginations that exalts itself against the Lord. .
now you have got to prove that ( stanky stuff) to me.. ! no guesses and no tired tired assumptions allowed !
so prove how a chunk of ice did the same thing on both sides of the florida peninsula and on two sides of two the mountain ranges ? explain how at both locations and both events.. hundreds of feet , trillions of tons, zillions of tons had to have moved , so that 40+++ feet of sterile sand would be deposited .40 +++ feet of sterile sand was deposited over trees in two locations and you want to say it was from different events. neither event can you or they prove. and you want to add even more sand at one location , which has got to be some vain imaginations at best. you and they can prove what it would even take for 40 feet of sand to move or bury something from anything remotely common. .
so you are say the Alabama side is from a chunk of ice ( ICE that you can’t prove) , now you got to prove that stuff. that ice is a really bad assumption that you can’t use because you can’t prove it. they got those stupid ignorant theories due to lack of knowledge and their very vain imaginations . assumptions you use that were created from only visible proof of nothing more than sand and water features all over North America!
then you also have to prove how both locations had the EXACT same extra ordinary results from different causes . as you have got to explain why in both locations there are now still many other very poorly explained features (cb’s etc ) that had to involve higher water levels and probably moving earth and moving water even ! and sorry no flood from a chunk of ice is going to do that and it is lame to even try . explain why in both locations hundreds of miles apart had the exact same extra ordinary results with the exact same trees and in very different topography now that can really only be hundreds of years old or they would not be there .
you don’t have billions, or even tens of thousands of years,
you don’t have lower sea levels
and you don’t have any kind of ice! you have only water and sand features from one side of turtle island to the to the other side of Turtle Island .
prove your theories without these unproven lame and tired assumptions and just down right ignorant theories , founded from their lack of knowledge and from their ideas born in their vain imaginations and lack of respect !
(you and they can(NOT!) prove what it would even take for 40 feet of sand to move or bury something from anything remotely common. .
Prove what CL? That you’re spoutin’ nonsensical unfounded, pseudo religious balderdash again? Nah, first you’re, gonna have to show where you get your silly claims from since it isn’t peer reviewed science. And then provide proof to make your own case. When you can do that, and only then, will you have a solid foundation to stand on while demanding proof from those with opposing views. Until you do, you’re just trolling. (something ole St.Paul referred to as “being like a noisy gong, or clanging cymbal”) And you are certainly not adding anything useful or productive to the conversation.
what part do you not get ? that no one has to subject themselves to your religion and boundries of your religion !! all it’s rules spoken and unspoken laws .. based on limited knowledge and agreed upon ignorance! only you do because it is your belief system .i”m not going to subject myself to that stupidity!
on the other hand no one has to subject their minds to the limits of eye witnessed veiws of history except those who believe the eye witnesses version of history . and if you think I am doing any of this for any of you !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g
You’re the only one spouting religion here CL. And if you don’t feel you should have to be subjected to the science espoused by this blog and group of commenters why do you continue to troll every conversation with your own made up pseudo religious tripe?
I think that is pot calling the kettle black ?
nope I won’t submit my beliefs to your religion and it’s stolen authority!
Mr Harris; As usual I’m a little behind in my reading, But I just read your post of 11-01-12. I find it quite interesting, a bit hard to follow but after a couple of rereads I’ve got the jist of it. I can see all that ejecta travelling accross the continent and covering vast areas of the Southeast U.S. When you have an enormous object coming in at a shallow angle, superheating as it comes in Then impacting on 1-2 miles of ice You are going to get one hell of a bang. I’m wondering if the sand left behind by the Kankakee Torrent could possibly match the sand from the Carolinas? Also if there are any sand quarrying in the areas of the cb’s there might be an exposed face somewhere where one can see the underlying base stratas.
case and point!
from archeaologica.org ( or something like that )
E.P. Grondine wrote:
shawomet wrote:
I am not really qualified to judge the merits of the case for ancient dates, but this is certainly an interesting study of how orthodox scientists react to and treat researchers who present evidence that screams “impossible!!”.
I certainly agree that you are not qualified, and not only in the judgement of the merits of ancient dates.
You are simlarly ignorant of cult archaeology, and how those con men work.
Its based on the suspension of judgement, which is something you are demonstrating, either as a victim or con man.
You have continually made false equivalencies since you first showed up here.
By focusing on process, you are trying to engage in “special pleading” of your case.
That is something that I do not do.
There is a big difference between physics and meta-physics, and paradigm shift is something that you also clearly do not understand or qualified in.”
when Mr Ed and Ilk like him use words like “cult archeology and con men” and in the same sentence , dude it is a religion!! and only one bad choice from some damn fearful fool with a christ complex before you all are burning “witches” !
I just ran across a fairly new scientific term:
Greedy Reductionism
One of the other things I am heavy into is climate change (formerly and more honestly termed “global warming”), from the skeptical POV. I would say there is an easy argument to be made about all the things “climate change” has been connected with.
As a general statement, while I don’t think we or any of the formal YD impact hypothesis folks are doing the greedy reductionist thing, I think it is one thing we should caution ourselves against – trying to fit too much into the YDB story.
I think our overall caution about the CBs argues that we aren’t doing that. Looking at it as a separate impact is healthy, even though I am not sure it is separate myself. But I am doing the objective thing, anyway, accepting for the most part the evidence that the two impact events are disconnected in time – if not very much by location. But that is just my own current prejudice about it.
The CBs themselves have enough anomalous evidence that it seems impossible to approach the subject without having to try to “explain too much too fast.” The trees under the quartz sand is certainly one of the outliers in the CB evidence – but one that needs to be included, at least in the discussion, and if for no other reason than to discard it with logic reason and evidence. Yet its strata location fairly screams out that it is part of whatever happened.
The single deposition of the quartz sand – evidenced by the lack of stratification and lack of extraneous laid-down materials as pointed out by Michael Davias and TH – argues that it is part of the story of the formation of the bays.
The alignment, of course, is foundational evidence that gradualism cannot explain. And it is not US saying it can’t be explained. We are just listening to those who have fully investigated this. It is Donald Johnson himself, certainly THE expert on the bays, who argues that no explanations are forthcoming from wind or water action – or from what we all would call “normal” hyper-velocity impacts. One of Michael Davias’ presentations lays this out well, how the experts tried and failed to assign existing terrestrial explanations. The continuing efforts by gradualists to dismiss the bays as aeolian seem to insult the work of all earlier researchers who looked over the same ground and by necessity had to rule out wind action. At least here we respect those earlier researchers and their conclusions (even though we only do so after vetting their conclusions).
The quartz sand itself and its amazing purity and size consistency argues for something far from aeolian, even if (Davias mostly) we are currently stretching our imaginations to uncover what that “something” was. So far, our guesses are as good as anyone’s and may be on the right track.
Piecing together something that no one has explained before and that is well outside the box must lead to some speculative explanations. Hell, even the evidence itself is outside the box, so no wonder it is a stretch. Reason can only lead us so far, before we quickly get into the realm beyond the science of the gradualists. If their attempts at explanations fail so miserably, we cannot be held to their standards. When their standards fail, who are they to point any fingers at anyone?
Gradualists interpret every piece of evidence as having been created via gradualistic processes. If in some rare cases the event was not gradualistic at all, then gradualistic explanations are not only wrong, they are monumentally wrong – going in exactly the wrong direction. If others – in a post-SL/9 and post Alvarez and post-Chebarkul world – argue for non-gradualistic explanations, the very LAST people qualified to kibitz the efforts of impact researchers are the gradualists.
At the same time, we should be careful to not overstep the evidence and travel the path of doomsday cults in our rush to fit pieces of the evidence into our own evolving paradigm. Gradualistic they may not be (YDB and/or CBs), but their histories are still within the laws of physics and chemistry. As aeolian was the crowbar gradualists used to (unsuccessfully) try to fit the CBs into their paradigm, we need to be careful to not use our own color of crowbar to try to fit everything into our own gestalt.
It is actually a GOOD thing that the Daulton Gang is out there. Look at the great work done on this last paper, Wittke 2013, on carbon spherules. Would it have been even begun without the intransigence of the Daulton Gang? So Bos and all those folks have actually contributed well, just by holding our feet to the fire. That is the way science is done. It is the thing that prevents us from attaching too much to one straightforward hypothesis, no matter how tempting it is to do that (and in so doing becoming “greedy reductionists”),
I think it is to the credit of Richard Firestone that the mammoth tusk evidence that is the namesake of this blog has been separated from the rest of the YDB evidence. If it does not fit, we must acquit and discard it – to some other study (because it IS evidence of something very interesting, even if it was not the YDB).
What Dennett calls “greedy reductionism” I call “crowbarring into one’s paradigm.” It’s okay, really, to try it – but don’t be surprised if someone call us on it.
And if the Daulton Gang tried to call the YDN folks on their hypothesis, fine. But if it then proves that the skeptics are the ones who are wrong, at some point the skeptics have to admit that it was not greedy reductionism at all. And if in some aspects it is not correct, then fine there, too. What doesn’t fit needs to not be included. So far most of it is fitting amazingly well, and we on the sidelines who can’t contribute science itself can at least be appreciative that we are among the first to witness a lot of this as it happens. (When I use the term “we” I do so as a fan, just as a sports fan refers to his home team as “us”. That neither adds nor detracts from the team and its efforts, but it is not everyone who gets to see science history in the making from such a close vantage point.)
As the Kerr count in the upper left shows, if we hold our breaths waiting for the skeptics to eat crow (if not crowbar), we will be very blue in the face. But there are times when we can gloat a bit, nevertheless – when the evidence is shown to NOT be crowbarred into the hypothesis, but is an integral part of it.
The YDB tam has NOT “underestimated the complexities,” but is fully addressing them. It’s rather cool that the complexities are fitting as well as the simple “foundation” itself.
Have a good day, gentlemen…
Fine post, Steve.
Chicken, you will be first to go — again — if you girls keep bickering. You are the anonymous one (chicken).
BTW, as regards the bald cypresses themselves, there may be some parallel that can be drawn from the mammoth tusks of Richard Firestone.
If the cypresses had been on target ground of a hyper-velocity vent, they would exist anymore. That is clear.
But if they were knocked down and covered up by a single deposition non-hyper-velocity event like the blast wave from Tunguska knocking down those many trees on the taiga, then there may be some microscopic evidence on the surface of those trees – evidence of quartz sand scarring for example. It is obvious that if the sand came in with enough energy to knock the trees down, then I’d think two things should be apparent:
1.) Scarring from the force of the sand particles. Whether this scarring could have survived the event and the subsequent millennia, I don’t know. But it is sopmething to look for. Just as Firestone looked for and found the iron balls in the mammoth tusks. The scarring would NOT necessarily be on one side only, since the tree might have rotated once uprooted. But I think the side first impacted would generally have deeper and more scarring.
2.) The quartz sand would be all around and even under the felled cypresses. The event – if true – would have been like a flood. The blanket would not have only come DOWN, but also after impact would have ejected for some distance and in doing so would have been something like a tsunami.
3.) The quartz sand particles would have been traveling faster than the uprooted cypresses would have been traveling before landing. So they would have blown past the cypresses and been able to form somewhat of a blanket on the ground before the cypresses were able to land. Unlike water, when the cypress fell on the sand, the sand would not all be squeezed out from under the trunk. One would expect the trees to be near – but not often ON the bottom of the sand layer.
Excellent point.
BTW, and of no importance at all –
In Figure 3 of the cypress article it shows a map of Washington D.C. and the Walker Interglacial Swamp a few blocks north of the White House.
That is exactly where I was – just coming out of a nudie bar with my G.I. buddies – when we found out that Martin Luther King had been shot. An MP jeep came screeching up to the curb and yelled to us that we needed to return to our base. When we found out what had happened, we all let out a few four-lettered words and then got back to base as fast as we could.
” NO chicken heart me ” ;P
George and Steve; Sorry if I stirred up a bit with the chicken, wasn’t looking for a fight just asking some questions that come to mind when I’m reading your various posts. This whole concept is fascinating. If I’m causing problems let me know and I’ll just watch. Thanks for the info and concepts, Jim C
Herman, your mesage from November 2012:
The provenance of sand is not determined by geochemical analysis, but by heavy-mineral analysis. Separate the minerals heavier than quartz, and have a look at them through a polarisation microscope. Any geologist who has done the basic course in thin-section microscopy can change over in not too long a time to the microscopy of grains.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/08/2013/lewis-canyon-petroglyph-site-gigapan-images
and one recorded match the Rhyniestone almost identical .
with very close to the same kind of events .. .. that is just way too cool!
It means that you get total discounts at the time of subscription. They offer so many extras that make starting
up a new website so simple that even a complete novice could get a website up and
running. What search results will offered up
with unless you possess a website or perhaps a blog to market your business.
because the so called informed like to remove pictures and sites( like past horizons has done ^^^ with that link ) so just removes anything that disproves their theories . and they can’t remove all sites that contain pictures of that site.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+canyon+petroglyph+site&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=855&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7uoCBrLnMAhXMnYMKHb1gB6kQsAQIOA&dpr=1
now you can find the petroglyph that match the Rhinestones on that link to images at google …… unless they remove the most offense to their theories of these too, just like they did with Gobekli Tepe which proved it was Noah’s ark and google earth which showed the ” carolina bays” in Africa and South America … now it is all painted over to camouflage the ground. and the liars will caught in their own traps.