In the weeks following the Hiawatha Crater discovery, I took the opportunity to post a personal note concerning the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis on my Facebook page. Deeper in the thread as a result of some comments I took the opportunity to give my “2018 take” on the Carolina bays. Here is my comment, excerpted from the full post at the bottom. I’ll let it speak for itself, but it has nothing to do with Hiawatha, probably;)
The Carolina bays play no role in the current Younger Dryas Boundary research because there is much, much better — and less controversial — evidence for global catastrophe ~12,782 years ago. Also, especially recently, there are some critically important YDB researchers — who I admire greatly — who flat out reject impact on mostly solid and well published grounds. But to your point, in my personal opinion, the common “conspiratorial” orientation of Carolina Bays remains very, very poorly explained in the modern literature. If there were multiple formations periods, as claimed, I have always felt you would see “genetic classes” of bays and you would be able to say when one bay (a discreet bay, not a multiple rim bay) formed, relative to the formation of another bay, and tell if it were formed before or after. Perhaps by just a tad different orientation? Nope. All uniform. Also, I believe that many if not the vast majority of bays were NEVER windblown lakes, which is contrary to prevailing terrestrial formation theory. UCSB’s lab in Santa Barbra went through cores of one I was closely involved with, no freshwaters diatoms, or any of that stuff. Just. Sand. Never lakes. Those are a couple of the problems I feel are inadequately explained. But I’m probably a fool to be skeptical. Finally, you have to prioritize your perspective, the “freight train” of research into the ~12,782 event and Hiawatha Crater now being put into gear should not be held back by the “kooky caboose” side theory. The caboose theory might be need to be cut loose — maybe with me on it😅 I don’t think discussing it hurts though.
Allow me a postscript for those new to the subject: NO ONE who believes the bays were formed simultaneously, not Antonio Zamorra (2018), or Eyton and Parkehurst (1975), or anyone else since 1950 who has published, or knows their stuff, believes the bays are PRIMARY impact features, all believe they are SECONDARY features which resulted from something slamming into the ground elsewhere and kicking up material or otherwise creating conditions that led the simultaneous formation of bays at another location. This 68 year old “bizarre new theory” has apparently not sunk in, since I have endured many lectures from the willfully misinformed or poorly read about no meteorites having been recovered from bays. No kidding. Who knows, maybe some time before the idea is a century old, those who oppose it will actually address it — and perhaps disprove it.