Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times
Mammoth Trumpet ^ | March 2001 | Firestone/Topping

Posted on 07/24/2006 12:03:03 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-291 next last
To: gleeaikin

"...Is there any possibility that Carolina Bays could have been formed by a tsunami depositing huge icebergs, which then melted leaving these gouges, or if covered by inwashed dirt, leaving a depression?..."

I considered this possibility some years ago. The theory is enticing, but I had to reject it in light of what I discovered about how Carolina Bays are arranged on the land. See my post #119.


121 posted on 07/25/2006 5:39:29 AM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Alrighty then. I follow your tier concept, but let me go back and pick up on a related point I neglected to address because to a laymen(that would be me) it appears patent nonsense; that is:

Although the Bay Rims date from the Pleistocene-holocene boundary, the bays themselves do not.

How can this possibly be? You'll probably need to go slow here with this ol' East Texas country boy. But, I have an open mind however, so I'm trainable.

They are contemporaneous with the fluviomarine terraces upon which they occur, and therefore, were not all formed at once, but sequentially; as sea level dropped and each new terrace was exposed, new bays were formed.

You're suggesting the bays were laid down over a period of hundreds, maybe thousands of years? Some within others? And different sizes; many overlapping? But the rims are all the same age??? I understand and appreciate your familiarity with the bays, but you'll forgive my skepticism?

You recall those 100 pound hailstones mentioned in the Bible(and possibly elsewhere)? To be honest, that seems as plausible as anything else I've read so far. And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it ;^)

FGS

122 posted on 07/25/2006 11:50:02 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Renfield
...and concluded that they represented impact cratering from a bolide that broke up in the atmosphere.

The problem as I understand with that conclusion is there have been no other indicators found from an impactor.........NONE. At least that I've run across in my searches. But who knows. Renfield is doing his best to explain all this in natural, make that, terrestial terms; I'm sure he gets frustrated. He has his own hypothesis that just sounds weird to me; being a layman ;^)

123 posted on 07/25/2006 12:11:22 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Thanks Fred. Keep 'em coming. I may as well move my computinmachine into the kitchen; like in front of the fridge, so's I won't have to get up and leave to eat. On second thought...........


124 posted on 07/25/2006 12:21:14 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Back about '97 or '98 I read a paper (unfortunately, I've forgotten the author and journal, but I could probably hunt it up eventually) on bay rims in South Carolina. The researcher dated them to the P-H boundary (perhaps by Optical Stimulation Luminescense?). Formation of rims is pretty easy to understand. 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, most of North America was both colder and windier than it is now. There were still trees in South Carolina, but they would have been more thinly spread than today, sort of like a Savannah. Bays, being depressional areas, were wetter than the surrounding higher areas, and would have supported much denser stands of trees. These denser stands of trees acted like windbreaks; when wind slows down, it drops much of its aeolian load, and indeed, the thickest portions of bay rims are along the southeastern edges of bays, which would have been in the lee of prevailing winter winds. (This is similar to snow drifts forming on the lee side of a hedge or fence). The woody vegetation in bays was (and is) different from that of the surrounding upland areas, too; deciduous evergreens like Red Bay, Loblolly Bay, Sweet Bay, Dahoon, Ti-Ti, etc, while the vegetation on the uplands was dominantly oak-hickory...trees that would lose their leaves during the winter. The Bays were very effective windbreaks.

As for the ages of bays themselves, I think that was from a paper by Ray Daniels and Ehrling Gamble circa 1967. The copies weren't mine, they belonged to one of my colleagues, so it would take me some effort to track them down.


125 posted on 07/25/2006 12:35:59 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: tet68

Aeon Flux, however, is rather nice. Tempermental though. And short-lived.


126 posted on 07/25/2006 12:43:10 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
They look EXACTLY llike Carolina Bays.

Well, not entirely. The Alaska "bays" are not nearly as uniform in shape or length/width dimensions. Seems the folks studying the Alaska bays haven't reached a conclusion yet as to what actually creates their bays either. Butt crack ice(cracking the bedrock) and thawing seems to be the most widely accepted hypothesis.

...if you drill down through the various stranded barrier dunes and back-barrier flats along the coast of South Carolina today, you will find buried carolina bays.

You're talking barrier islands/strips? Backfilled by wave action? Hurricanes? Tusnamis? Rising oceans? Even so, does that necessarily rule out aerial fireworks? Like I said, you'll need to go slow with this ol' East Texas country boy ;^)

BTW, I'm sure you're familiar with the other "bays" around the world. After doing some additional searching, there seems to be a bunch of these things around. MANY of them nowhere near a present or historic/prehistoric shoreline. Some aligned parallel with a shoreline; some at elevations of a thousand feet; maybe more. Thoughts? Best I can tell the one thing they seem to have in common is they have been located(the visible ones?) on soft soil. Sandy lome and the like??? I suppose if sand dunes didn't change so much they might be good candidates for finding visible bays.

This is giving me a headache. Think I'll take a nap.

127 posted on 07/25/2006 12:46:08 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

"....You're suggesting the bays were laid down over a period of hundreds, maybe thousands of years? Some within others? And different sizes; many overlapping? But the rims are all the same age??? I understand and appreciate your familiarity with the bays, but you'll forgive my skepticism?..."

I am indeed. And I think I have a good theory to explain it. I'm reluctant to post it all here, partially because it would require a lot of drawings and illustrations, and partially because I'm mulling over the possiblity of going back to school for my PhD in geomorphology, and I don't want someone else to steal my research idea out from under me. However, if you are ever in my area and would like to meet me in person, I'll be glad to talk your ear off about it. :)


128 posted on 07/25/2006 12:52:04 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

"...You're talking barrier islands/strips? Backfilled by wave action? Hurricanes? Tusnamis? Rising oceans? ..."

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and more. Once sea level becomes relatively stable for a while, barrier islands form along continental edges of low gradient (such as along our eastern and southeastern coasts). Backbarrier areas accrete soil and soil-forming material rapidly; this includes wind-and wave-deposited mineral material, as well as organic detritus from saltmarsh vegetation (and the saltmarsh vegetation itself acts as a filter to trap suspended sands, silts and clays). One of my colleagues at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, in neighboring Anne Arundel County, has measured >14 feet of Holocene deposition (mostly organic) in a saltmarsh along the Chesapeake Bay. This rate of deposition is by no means unusual.

By the way, I'm convinced that earth is frequently (on a geologic time scale) bombarded by various metorites and cometary fragments. I just don't think such bombardment is responsible for Carolina Bays.


129 posted on 07/25/2006 1:19:22 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Thanks for the explanation re the, er, rimshots......I think. One observation: Around here pine and the like grow on the high ground; hardwoods in the lowlands, that is, creek and river bottoms especially. Anywhere water tends to accumulate, you'll hardly find a pine or other softwood. The hardwoods rule there, FWIW. Hardwoods typically have shallower, wider spread root systems, while softwoods typically have a taproot in addition to small feeder roots. Why the difference in growing patterns???

IOW, the bays walk, look and act like a duck to the layman(that would be me), that is, it looks for all the world like something took a swipe at the eastern seaboard(amongst other places???) at roughly the P/H boundary. If you're sayin' it ain't a duck, the arguments will necessarily have to be ironclad. Or maybe handed down from the mount. Coulda's and woulda's are great for purposes of discussion, but.....

Again, you'll forgive my skeptcism???

FS

130 posted on 07/25/2006 1:24:19 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

"....Well, not entirely. The Alaska "bays" are not nearly as uniform in shape or length/width dimensions..."

Perhaps not all of them are, but the ones I saw on that poster were very uniform, and appeared to be perfectly elliptical. I was struck by their uniformity and symmetry.

"...Seems the folks studying the Alaska bays haven't reached a conclusion yet as to what actually creates their bays either. Butt crack ice(cracking the bedrock) and thawing seems to be the most widely accepted hypothesis...."

Well, perhaps. Geologists and geomorphologists tell me that there was no permafrost, and no glacial ice, in the Carolinas and Georgia, even during the glacial maxima. It would be surprising if two wildly divergiant geomorphic mechanisms produced such similar results. I suspect that when we finally solve this puzzle, we will find tht the bays of both areas have the same, or very similar, causes.


131 posted on 07/25/2006 1:28:13 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I'm reluctant to post it all here, partially because it would require a lot of drawings and illustrations, and partially because I'm mulling over the possiblity of going back to school for my PhD in geomorphology, and I don't want someone else to steal my research idea out from under me.

Can't blame you for that and good luck!

However, if you are ever in my area and would like to meet me in person, I'll be glad to talk your ear off about it. :)

The offer is much appreciated, but I would run out of gas on the subject in short order. My career(s) have been in the financial and sales fields for the most part, and while I have a keen interest in past happenings on our globe, I know little about it, but I'm trying to catch up. Debating experts is good exercise for me. Thanks again for your efforts.

Now I've really got to do something about this headache.

FGS

132 posted on 07/25/2006 1:32:45 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Certainly I forgive your skepticism; you should see the arguments we soil scientists get into amongst ourselves (there's an old saying that if you put 2 soil scientists into a pit, you get 3 opinions).

Remember that pines are not climax vegetation anywhere on the coastal plain. They are colonizing species, and depend upon fire, or other disturbance, to keep out competing hardwoods. Palynological evidence shows that Oaks and Hickories were the dominant arboreal species on the coastal plain of the Carolinas during the Pleistocene, and dry, sandy uplands are climaxed by Oaks, Hickories, and Dogwood today as well. Indians burned large areas to open up the forest and improve hunting (as well as to make garden space for themselves), and pines came in. Even today, foresters have to burn areas periodically to keep them in pines.


133 posted on 07/25/2006 1:41:08 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

OKG!! Mother Nature has nukes!! We're all DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YOU!!


134 posted on 07/25/2006 3:50:32 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
...but why not just use the word "ago".

To avoid having to calculate the years everytime the subject comes up, I'm guessing. And to place it in a timeline.

135 posted on 07/25/2006 7:29:03 PM PDT by skr (We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.-- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Points taken re the forestry characteristics in your area. I suppose I would need to get with a local East Texas forestry agent to find out why things work a little differently in these "piney" woods. Not being on a coastal plain might have something to do with it, although we don't miss it by much.


136 posted on 07/25/2006 8:12:22 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
We're all DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YOU!!

Not to worry; the radiation is minimal but you'll really need to watch out for those incoming hailstones. One of those could mess up your whole day.

137 posted on 07/25/2006 8:17:27 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

I have witnessed three seperate meteor events. Two were quite a ways west of me. One went right over my head. Now, when a meteor goes over your head, and lights up the sky like daylight, you take notice. The other two were equally as eventful as both were quite incredible explosions. One, off the coast of California, that I could see from Oklahoma, the other happened over New Mexico. All three were in the late 90's while I delivered newspapers at night. I heard on the news after the California meteor that it apparently woke people from sound sleep, and may have caused some electical disturbances as well.


138 posted on 07/25/2006 10:21:02 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
While I've witnessed any number of metoer showers, I've never seen a big one up close and personal.

I heard on the news after the California meteor that it apparently woke people from sound sleep, and may have caused some electical disturbances as well.

Now that's interesting. One would suspect some sort of electrical disturbances from one of these things, particularly a big one, but I've not read enough about 'em to know if there's been any research. The static discharge as these things pass through the atmosphere must be tremendous, but what about when they get near the surface??? Lightning bolts??? There may be some interesting stuff out there; I just haven't taken the time to look for it.

Thanks for stopping by and the input.

139 posted on 07/25/2006 10:54:30 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: timer

Yellowstone, another "toba"

Yes, I am very aware of that situation. In fact my father wrote an entire, very long and wordy, novel on the subject. In it he postulates a man, like himself, becoming aware of the danger, and moving operations to the Carolina's. Then it blows and a whole lot of adventures after that. Some day I may take it and rewrite it and possibly get it published. Actually, his interest was one of the things that restimulated my active interest in volcanism.

Regarding Neanderthals, there were some recent FR threads about the discovery of some N genes in the Scottish population, and perhaps other northerners. About 40% of the population, and virtually all the redheads. My husband was Scottish ancestry, very redhead and blue eyed (a positive adaptation to diminished sunshine and Vitamin D formation), heavy brow ridges, large dense bones, short legs and long torso (good for cold climates), very hairy, and warrior temperment. I always thought he might have some neanderthal ancestry, and now I am almost certain. One of our sons has his size and density, but none of his coloring. He is currently in Afghanistan. One of our sons also has the same body density, like a pit bull, if you have ever felt one. I think some Ns may have interbread with other groups moving north, as the pale coloring would have had positive survival value until the blond gene showed up which has the same Vitamin D value, enabling women to develop broad childbirth friendly pelvises.

Regarding Flores person, I think that the island must have been much larger when the ice age ended, with the water 400 feet lower than now. As melting caused the sea to rise the people and other animals were forced into a smaller and smaller area, and miniturization enabled them to survive with fewer resources. I think other large animals also miniturized. I think this happened on Malta with elephants.


140 posted on 07/25/2006 11:51:44 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-291 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson