Iceland. 
Maybe?
Posted on 07/24/2006 12:03:03 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Later.
FGS
dates are a problem with this one, no?
----
No, not really. I came across the name W F Prouty in 'An Address Before the Graduate College Forum of Princeton University on October 14, 1953' of which the title was 'Worlds in Collision in the light of Recent Finds in Archeology, Geology and Astronomy.'
It's a supplement to my copy of Earth in Upheaval...in which Velikovsky writes:
'The tens of thousands of oval formations on the Atlantic coast of the United States, especially in the Carolinas, some of them attaining a length of a few miles each, were conclusively identified, in a monograph by W. F. Prouty (1952), as having been caused by the fall of large meteorites. And finally, the largest crater formations, situated in Quebec north of Sept Iles, in Canada, and occupying an area of 680 square miles, is under investigation as to its meteroric origin by a group of Mines Department scientists led by Dr. J. S. Innes.'
I picked up the link I posted whilst looking for W.F. Prouty's work. IMO all the heavy lifting on this subject was done in the 50's...but that's just me...
I don't know anything about bays in South Africa. can you send me a reference?
Glad to. In my searches for additional "bay" evidence I ran across a group of Google Earthers who apparently spend much of their time searching for bay type features around the world. They have located many such features, most of which have what appear to be identical characteristics to the Carolina bays. Many, like I said, nowhere near any oceans past or present, and some at elevations above 1500'.
If you'll start HERE you can go to the various sites where bay type features have been found so far. The Australian and South African sites are the most interesting, but there are others as well. Click on the individual posters "placemarker" to go to the particular site they have found(You'll need to load the Google Earth program if you don't already have it).
Now, due to my lack of communication skills I have apparently not made one point in particular very well. ~120,000 years ago sea levels were at their highest recorded level during the past 500,000 years. 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. I may be missing something, but it wouldn't be the first time.
Re the absence of shocked quartz associated with the bays; FWIW, the Tunguska impactor apparenlty left little trace of itself behind either. Another note re Tunguska: One descripton of the first people on the site found NO crater, but a few "sinkholes" in the vicinity. Sinkholes???
There's still another point I'm forgetting(which is par for the course I'm afraid), but maybe it will come back to me.
FGS
~snip~
Professor of physical chemistry from the Altay State University Vladislav Batenkov thinks that traces of the Tunguska meteorite should not have been searched for not directly under the meteorite’s course, but rather in the opposite direction.
Professor Batenkov graduated from the Chemistry Department of Tomsk State University; he currently deals with transistor electrochemistry. He has published several substantial monographs. Vladislav Batenkov is the creator of 14 inventions. The professor said in an interview to the newspaper Altayskaya Pravda: “The mystery of the Tunguska meteorite can be solved with the help of the physicochemical properties of water. The explanation is based upon water’s ability to decompose in oxygen and hydrogen at temperatures of over 1000 degrees centigrade. At the temperature of 5000 degrees centigrade, the decomposition occurs with detonation. When the temperature of the oxygen and hydrogen (the detonating mixture) drops below 1000 degrees centigrade, water is generated again together with the detonation.
The rest of the article goes on to explain his hypothesis. Compelling reading.
Interesting, no?
Did you say Sinkholes?!
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/26448/an/0/page/791
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/sinkhole.htm
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/sinkholes.html
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Geologic_hazards_sink_holes_karst/sinkholes.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~txwinkle/WINK_SINK.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1484280/posts
Iceland.
Maybe?
Methinks we've come full circle.
"....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.
Check out this report on Arctic lakes from Nasa. The mechanism they propose for formation has nothing to do with comets.
Also note that the oriented arctic lakes POINT DOWNHILL!!
'......They report in the June 3 Science that the spatial pattern of lake disappearance suggests that the lakes drained away when the permafrost below them thawed, allowing the lake water to seep down into the groundwater. However, the team also found that lakes in northwestern Siberia actually grew by 12 percent, and 50 new lakes formed. Both of the rapid changes are due to warming, they say, and if the warming trend continues, the northern lakes will eventually shrink as well. “These two processes are similar, in that we’re witnessing permafrost degradation in both regions,” says co-author Larry Hinzman, a hydrologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, who in previous studies documented shrinking lakes in southern Alaska. “In the warmer, southern areas, we get groundwater infiltration, but in the northern areas, where the permafrost is thicker and colder, it’s going to take much, much longer for that to occur. So instead of seeing lakes shrinking there, we’re seeing lakes growing.” That finding is consistent with the second study, which focused on a set of unusually oriented, rapidly growing lakes in northern Alaska, an area of continuous permafrost. Jon Pelletier, a geomorphologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reports in the June 30 Journal of Geophysical Research — Earth Surface that the odd alignment of the lakes is caused not by wind direction but by permafrost melting faster at the downhill end of the lake, which has shallower banks.....'
Gee thanks Fred! Looks like I'm gonna have to take vacation jsut to give myself any chance of digesting this info. I'll get there eventually. Your efforts are appreciated.
I'll be back with more this evening.
What I have suggested (in a much earlier post) is that the bays formed sequentially, on each terrace, after the sea regressed from that terrace. I absolutely do not think that they all formed at the same time. And you can see from the links I posted above, that on the artic slope, the formation of those elongated lakes is an ongoing process. I don't think that exactly the same process formed the Carolina Bays (so far there is no evidence of permafrost on the southern Coastal Plain), but I think Carolina Bay formation would have appeared similar to some observer watching from on high, through geologic time.
What's this about a "straw man"? I'm being as straightforward as I can be.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.