Replies

"....It was ~30m(~125') above current sea level. So it would seem to me that any bay type feature above ~125' would not be a good candidate for ocean hydrologic activity since sea levels have never been higher than that...."

You should take a course in historical geology. Sea levels have in fact been much higher than that. During the late cretaceous, sea levels in the Carolinas were at least 350 feet higher than today. Even Tertiary marine sediments may be found at elevations of 270 feet.

I don't have a cable-modem, so Google Earth is out for me. Rather than sending me to some group of amateurs, point me to papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I can get access to them.

I can't begin to compose a respectable response til this evening, but I think I detect some strawmen in your reply. Not the least of which is marine sediments, which have been found at thousands of feet of elevation. Also, for pusposes of discussion, as recently as ~5mya sea levels were at roughly 100m above where they are now. Are you suggesting the bays may be that old, or older?

I'll be back with more this evening.

Let me begin by apologizing for not responding last night as I promised. I had gone searching around Australia for some additional formations, and after about three hours of that my eyelids slammed shut.

Something that really stumped me was the apparent lack of a seashsore and the elevations some of these bays, or oriented lakes, are located around the world. BTW, some of which are as much as a mile in elevation(South Africa). Anyway, Australia is a good place to look around because of the near flat surface. What I discovered when I found these oriented lakes(very few true "bays" because of soil type???), was many/most of them are associated with depressions; that is, areas that may have held water in the past. Inland seas for example. I also discovered many oriented lakes and apparent bays near present or past river courses. Ahem, so what I'm saying is, I may be getting to a place where I may concede a point: That there is the possibility the Carolina Bays may have been formed by hydrologic forces.

I don't have a cable-modem, so Google Earth is out for me.

FWIW, I took this as a strawman. Where there's a will, there's a way?

Rather than sending me to some group of amateurs...

Tacky. Just tacky. Not to diminish the pros, but you would agree that "amateurs" have made significant contributions in various disciplines over the years? I have come to a "trust by verify" mode from the scientific community. Inherent problems with that approach should be obvious for a layman.

Just one other point re the elevations(~5,000') some of these bays/oriented lakes are found and associated marine sediments. Tectonic forces have raised areas that were previously near or even under water? Is there any other explanation for this anomoly?

Have to run again, but will check back this afternoon.

FGS