jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 16, 2022 11:07:03 GMT -5
Consider this vegasjames and RWA3006. Let me say something about coastal plain sand, coastal plain gumbo clay and the shallow coastal plain water table since these are the soils these depressions are located at. many coastal plain gumbo clays - Say you have a full dump truck of 17 yards of dry or pasty gumbo clay delivered to your site. It will dump into a pyramid like pile as soil would. If you place a sprinkler on it over night(in most cases) the sprinkler will hydrate the pile and it will flatten to a 6 inch tall pancake much larger in diameter by the next day. This is a unique property. sand - To drill a well thru 150 feet of sand it requires an unusual amount of bentonite clay to prevent the bore hole from collapsing. Even at that the borehole is chased by a steel pipe as drilling. The nature of the sand along the coast is often similar to quicksand and is near self leveling when immersed in water. That my be why the large lakes down there vary from 4 to 11 feet in depth. the water table - Is commonly 2 to 3 feet below the surface at most. An impact could instantly turn the site into a complete liquid slurry that may reach level as soon as the impact energy comes to rest. I know that ejecta material be it rocks or ice is traveling at very high rates of speed it still seems to average about 1/10th the speed of a substantial meteor at impact after passing thru the atmosphere. The theory here is that this is ice with a lower density than most rock suggests a yet slower ejecta impact speed. Wouldn't these considerations affect an ejecta impact outcome ? Remember the airliner that went down in the Everglades ? Granted much slower speed but where did it go ? I don't think they were able to recoup the airliner.  Two fighter jets crashed almost directly straight into the coastal plane that I visited. One hit in a bog near High Springs Fl and the other in deep sand country in the Ocala National Forest. The bog crash stopped the jet at 60 feet depth and the sand impact completely buried the jet. None left craters, they sealed themselves. Odd that there was no funnel hole. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 16, 2022 11:19:54 GMT -5
The one conclusion I can postulate from this is that theories are like asteroid holes, everyone has them. Bottom line is we weren't there, and those that were ain't talking. I was looking at a piece of property along the Santa Fe River. I asked the country fellow owner why he had a piece of what looked to be an airplane tail section in his backyard. An out of control fighter jet estimated at Mach 1 hit the bog not 300 feet from where he was cleaning fish. Guessing he had a very tight asteroid hole upon impact. He said it made little noise but ejected a whole lot of mud and had no idea what had happened as the jet was outrunning it's own sound at impact. His dock was not 50 feet from the impact and had no damage. The military was unable to dig the jet out as hole can not be dug in most low viscosity muck. |
|
RWA3006
Cave Dweller
Member since March 2009
Posts: 4,625 
|
Post by RWA3006 on Apr 16, 2022 12:36:21 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts, gentlemen. Asteroid holes.... you're killin me.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 16, 2022 13:53:07 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts, gentlemen. Asteroid holes.... you're killin me. Why should your studies be limited to what comes out of asteroid holes when you can study the actual asteroid holes too ? Just think of it as dilating your horizons  . |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 16, 2022 17:56:40 GMT -5
Consider this vegasjames and RWA3006 . Let me say something about coastal plain sand, coastal plain gumbo clay and the shallow coastal plain water table since these are the soils these depressions are located at. many coastal plain gumbo clays - Say you have a full dump truck of 17 yards of dry or pasty gumbo clay delivered to your site. It will dump into a pyramid like pile as soil would. If you place a sprinkler on it over night(in most cases) the sprinkler will hydrate the pile and it will flatten to a 6 inch tall pancake much larger in diameter by the next day. This is a unique property. sand - To drill a well thru 150 feet of sand it requires an unusual amount of bentonite clay to prevent the bore hole from collapsing. Even at that the borehole is chased by a steel pipe as drilling. The nature of the sand along the coast is often similar to quicksand and is near self leveling when immersed in water. That my be why the large lakes down there vary from 4 to 11 feet in depth. the water table - Is commonly 2 to 3 feet below the surface at most. An impact could instantly turn the site into a complete liquid slurry that may reach level as soon as the impact energy comes to rest. I know that ejecta material be it rocks or ice is traveling at very high rates of speed it still seems to average about 1/10th the speed of a substantial meteor at impact after passing thru the atmosphere. The theory here is that this is ice with a lower density than most rock suggests a yet slower ejecta impact speed. Wouldn't these considerations affect an ejecta impact outcome ? Remember the airliner that went down in the Everglades ? Granted much slower speed but where did it go ? I don't think they were able to recoup the airliner. Two fighter jets crashed almost directly straight into the coastal plane that I visited. One hit in a bog near High Springs Fl and the other in deep sand country in the Ocala National Forest. The bog crash stopped the jet at 60 feet depth and the sand impact completely buried the jet. None left craters, they sealed themselves. Odd that there was no funnel hole. This would be very easy to test. How deep are the bays before they hit bedrock through the silt and sand? I am sure they have done core samples. This will give the true depth of the bays. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 17, 2022 4:07:20 GMT -5
Consider this vegasjames and RWA3006 . Let me say something about coastal plain sand, coastal plain gumbo clay and the shallow coastal plain water table since these are the soils these depressions are located at. many coastal plain gumbo clays - Say you have a full dump truck of 17 yards of dry or pasty gumbo clay delivered to your site. It will dump into a pyramid like pile as soil would. If you place a sprinkler on it over night(in most cases) the sprinkler will hydrate the pile and it will flatten to a 6 inch tall pancake much larger in diameter by the next day. This is a unique property. sand - To drill a well thru 150 feet of sand it requires an unusual amount of bentonite clay to prevent the bore hole from collapsing. Even at that the borehole is chased by a steel pipe as drilling. The nature of the sand along the coast is often similar to quicksand and is near self leveling when immersed in water. That my be why the large lakes down there vary from 4 to 11 feet in depth. the water table - Is commonly 2 to 3 feet below the surface at most. An impact could instantly turn the site into a complete liquid slurry that may reach level as soon as the impact energy comes to rest. I know that ejecta material be it rocks or ice is traveling at very high rates of speed it still seems to average about 1/10th the speed of a substantial meteor at impact after passing thru the atmosphere. The theory here is that this is ice with a lower density than most rock suggests a yet slower ejecta impact speed. Wouldn't these considerations affect an ejecta impact outcome ? Remember the airliner that went down in the Everglades ? Granted much slower speed but where did it go ? I don't think they were able to recoup the airliner. Two fighter jets crashed almost directly straight into the coastal plane that I visited. One hit in a bog near High Springs Fl and the other in deep sand country in the Ocala National Forest. The bog crash stopped the jet at 60 feet depth and the sand impact completely buried the jet. None left craters, they sealed themselves. Odd that there was no funnel hole. This would be very easy to test. How deep are the bays before they hit bedrock through the silt and sand? I am sure they have done core samples. This will give the true depth of the bays. Much of the coastal plain is underlain with dense limestone James. In most cases the rivers have removed the sand and even carved out a gorge in the ancient limestone bedrock via acidic water flow. In many cases the river bottoms are solid limestone. The sand layer is quite thin in low areas closely adjacent to these rivers. Most rivers have tall sandy banks often laced with clay binders from erosion from the upland clay piedmonts. Sand is predominate and similar on these low lying flat coastal plains along the east coast. I don't know what the effect of ice ejecta landing on 50 to 200 feet(probably a good average depth) of sand laying on limestone bedrock would be. If that is what happened of course. This large bed of sand is consistent along the east coast. I am fairly certain this sand/limestone bedrock combo limestone is consistent below the Fall Line in Georgia, S Carolina, N Carolina and Virginia, not sure about the NE US zone. The Fall Line is the ancient shore line of the ocean that made the coastal plain. It is a distinct boundary. It is consistent in sandy soil from say New York to Alabama. Things change on the west half of Alabama as the west side of Alabama slopes toward the Mississippi River causing a different mix of geologic features. Ship transport could travel up the east coast rivers until the rivers hit the rocky (granite)shoals beginning at the Fall Line. And the soil changes to clay above the Fall Line. The ships were unloaded there and ground transport had to be used.  Correlation of Bays to Fall Line. This correlation messes with my head too James. Find flat sandy coastal plain fields and you find bays. These flat sandy fields are el primo ag land. Most of it is in crop production. Rich and easy to plow soils.  |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 17, 2022 5:14:38 GMT -5
This would be very easy to test. How deep are the bays before they hit bedrock through the silt and sand? I am sure they have done core samples. This will give the true depth of the bays. Much of the coastal plain is underlain with dense limestone James. In most cases the rivers have removed the sand and even carved out a gorge in the ancient limestone bedrock via acidic water flow. Hmmmm, Limestone and acidic water. Sounds like the perfect conditions for sinkholes, which from what I have read are a common issue in the area.
Regardless, I am not saying 100% that is what formed the bays. There is no conclusive evidence for any one thing proving what formed them from what I see. That is why there are so many hypotheses about their formation.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 17, 2022 10:43:58 GMT -5
Mathematical probability is not in favor of the elliptical sinkhole argument vegasjames. Nature has many mathematical relationships. One of them is round sinkholes. Say the probability of an elliptical sinkhole forming is .5 which is on the high side since sinkholes are typically round. The probability of two forming in sequence is .5 x .5 = .25 The probability of 10 forming in sequence is .5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5 = 1 in 1000 chance. The probability of 500,000 elliptical sinkholes having formed with few round ones would easily be in the one in one trillion zone. This is just one example of why math strongly supports the Bay impact theory. There is a host of mathematical anomalies that support impact simply because of the shear number of impacts. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 17, 2022 18:31:01 GMT -5
Mathematical probability is not in favor of the elliptical sinkhole argument vegasjames . Nature has many mathematical relationships. One of them is round sinkholes. Say the probability of an elliptical sinkhole forming is .5 which is on the high side since sinkholes are typically round. The probability of two forming in sequence is .5 x .5 = .25 The probability of 10 forming in sequence is .5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5 = 1 in 1000 chance. The probability of 500,000 elliptical sinkholes having formed with few round ones would easily be in the one in one trillion zone. This is just one example of why math strongly supports the Bay impact theory. There is a host of mathematical anomalies that support impact simply because of the shear number of impacts. Math is fine, but the science behind it, which would include multiple forms of evidence is even better. And as i pointed out there is no solid evidence such as an eliptical field with larger impacts at a further distance, no evidence of massive flooding or rock deformation, no evidence of deep impressions that would be consistent with the energy that would have been associated with larger chunks of ice hitting from an impact event, no evidence of forests being laid down directionally from the shockwave of an impact event, no explanation of the different ages of the bays that vary by 54,000 years. No explanation of how there are 2 directions the bays go. No explanation of why the supposed ejection from an impact site does not go out in a 180 degree pattern that would be consistent with an actual impact event. You still have not answered my question as to how you think these facts were ruled out.
There is a good reason though that so many scientists have ruled out formation of the bays by an impact event on an ice cap in what is now Canada.
Again, various plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the formation of these bays. The shape of the bays alone is not sufficient evidence to confirm formation by any one event.
Since I am in medicine, I will give a medical analogy. This is like a person going to the doctor saying they have pain and the doctor claiming it is kidney stones without bothering to ask where the pain is or running any tests. It takes much more than one small piece of a puzzle to see the whole picture.
If you want to convince people this was an impact event from hitting an ice cap then provide more evidence to this hypothesis. Otherwise is remains a hypothesis and does not even rise to the level of a theory. Show me some evidence of the shock deformation, evidence of a shockwave or massive associated flood, etc. The more evidence you can provide that cannot be explained by multiple things, the stronger your hypothesis becomes, and it may even rise to the level of a theory.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 18, 2022 5:22:55 GMT -5
Mathematical probability is not in favor of the elliptical sinkhole argument vegasjames . Nature has many mathematical relationships. One of them is round sinkholes. Say the probability of an elliptical sinkhole forming is .5 which is on the high side since sinkholes are typically round. The probability of two forming in sequence is .5 x .5 = .25 The probability of 10 forming in sequence is .5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5x.5 = 1 in 1000 chance. The probability of 500,000 elliptical sinkholes having formed with few round ones would easily be in the one in one trillion zone. This is just one example of why math strongly supports the Bay impact theory. There is a host of mathematical anomalies that support impact simply because of the shear number of impacts. Math is fine, but the science behind it, which would include multiple forms of evidence is even better. And as i pointed out there is no solid evidence such as an eliptical field with larger impacts at a further distance, no evidence of massive flooding or rock deformation, no evidence of deep impressions that would be consistent with the energy that would have been associated with larger chunks of ice hitting from an impact event, no evidence of forests being laid down directionally from the shockwave of an impact event, no explanation of the different ages of the bays that vary by 54,000 years. No explanation of how there are 2 directions the bays go. No explanation of why the supposed ejection from an impact site does not go out in a 180 degree pattern that would be consistent with an actual impact event. You still have not answered my question as to how you think these facts were ruled out. There is a good reason though that so many scientists have ruled out formation of the bays by an impact event on an ice cap in what is now Canada.
Again, various plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the formation of these bays. The shape of the bays alone is not sufficient evidence to confirm formation by any one event. Since I am in medicine, I will give a medical analogy. This is like a person going to the doctor saying they have pain and the doctor claiming it is kidney stones without bothering to ask where the pain is or running any tests. It takes much more than one small piece of a puzzle to see the whole picture.
If you want to convince people this was an impact event from hitting an ice cap then provide more evidence to this hypothesis. Otherwise is remains a hypothesis and does not even rise to the level of a theory. Show me some evidence of the shock deformation, evidence of a shockwave or massive associated flood, etc. The more evidence you can provide that cannot be explained by multiple things, the stronger your hypothesis becomes, and it may even rise to the level of a theory.
As I mentioned to you earlier recent findings have found dating way off. Science is evolving. As long as they have a section of tree of a known age to compare their findings to, dating is useless. At this point in time a 4000 year old log has allowed accurate dating back to 4000 years only because they had a benchmark to compare to. That's the limitation, about 4000 years. Would cause of death due to 500,000 bee stings be enough proof ? This is more inline with the analogy I am presenting because I have a long list of tangible evidence to suspect impact event. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 18, 2022 6:04:34 GMT -5
Math is fine, but the science behind it, which would include multiple forms of evidence is even better. And as i pointed out there is no solid evidence such as an eliptical field with larger impacts at a further distance, no evidence of massive flooding or rock deformation, no evidence of deep impressions that would be consistent with the energy that would have been associated with larger chunks of ice hitting from an impact event, no evidence of forests being laid down directionally from the shockwave of an impact event, no explanation of the different ages of the bays that vary by 54,000 years. No explanation of how there are 2 directions the bays go. No explanation of why the supposed ejection from an impact site does not go out in a 180 degree pattern that would be consistent with an actual impact event. You still have not answered my question as to how you think these facts were ruled out. There is a good reason though that so many scientists have ruled out formation of the bays by an impact event on an ice cap in what is now Canada.
Again, various plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the formation of these bays. The shape of the bays alone is not sufficient evidence to confirm formation by any one event. Since I am in medicine, I will give a medical analogy. This is like a person going to the doctor saying they have pain and the doctor claiming it is kidney stones without bothering to ask where the pain is or running any tests. It takes much more than one small piece of a puzzle to see the whole picture.
If you want to convince people this was an impact event from hitting an ice cap then provide more evidence to this hypothesis. Otherwise is remains a hypothesis and does not even rise to the level of a theory. Show me some evidence of the shock deformation, evidence of a shockwave or massive associated flood, etc. The more evidence you can provide that cannot be explained by multiple things, the stronger your hypothesis becomes, and it may even rise to the level of a theory.
As I mentioned to you earlier recent findings have found dating way off. Science is evolving. As long as they have a section of tree of a known age to compare their findings to, dating is useless. At this point in time a 4000 year old log has allowed accurate dating back to 4000 years only because they had a benchmark to compare to. That's the limitation, about 4000 years. Would cause of death due to 500,000 bee stings be enough proof ? This is more inline with the analogy I am presenting because I have a long list of tangible evidence to suspect impact event. Yes, you made the claim of inaccuracy, but provided no proof to your claim.
In fact, we have been over this before when you wrote:
"The low angle impacts of ice explains away the dating claims, lack of shocked quartz, shock cones, volcanoes, etc.".
And I responded with:
"Low angle impact does not explain those away, nor does it explain how pieces of ice hitting with forces of 3 megatons would leave such shallow depressions. A low angle impact on ice would still leave alterations in the underlying rock, as wold the ice impacts hitting with a 3 megaton force that the one video you linked claims. And again, where is the evidence of massive flooding that would have occurred as the amount of heat that would have formed from an impact on an ice cap that they do not even know for sure how thick it was, would have melted en masse immediately. Where is the evidence of petrified forests found back East showing trees directionally laid down from a shockwave, which if present could still be from a volcano as well. Why is the ejecta patterns not consistent with an impact event? Again, an impact event with such as shallow angle as is being claimed should have a main ejecta pattern of 180 degrees, which is not what is being shown. And in some cases people are showing multiple suggested impact sites including some in what is now South Central US, at a different angle. Again, there are still so many flaws with the impact hypothesis. Problem I see with these videos is that they people making them have this per-concieved idea that this was in fact an impact event and so they are only looking for evidence to back their hypothesis while ignoring all the evidence that disputes an impact event. That is why the one guy making these videos was saying this is how it happened when his hypothesis was never proven. I am curious though as to how you think a shallow impact, if it had occurred, would explain away the dating claims of the bays varying in ages from 6,0000 to 60,000 years. Can you explain in detail why you think a shallow impact event would supposedly explain this away?"
Despite my asking a couple of times already, you still have not answered my question of why you think a shallow impact event explains science away. Simply claiming it is wrong without a shred of evidence to back up that claim does not cut it. Unsupported claims is not what science is about and definitely is not evidence.
So for the third time, how does a shallow impact event explain away the dating claims, lack of shocked quartz, shock cones, volcanoes, etc.?
For instance, a shallow impact event powerful enough to send massive chunks of ice that far south is definitely going to lead to shock deformation features as I already explained.
Volcanoes could have erupted under the ice pack sending ice flying. So your claim that the volcano hypothesis is explained away is not true. And it is still possible that a comet breaking up over the bays could have left the craters without an impact event in what is now Canada.
And they dated the KT layer, which was from an impact event. So do you think that since this was also an impact even that this dating was also inaccurate? If so, why7 And again, how do you think a shallow impact event, if it actually happened, would explain away the dating? I am really confused by this claim and would love to see some real science backing this claim.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 18, 2022 6:19:19 GMT -5
It's all theoretical vegasjames. I will gladly admit to not having any absolute proof. Impact science is nebulous at best even if you know the projectile's materials involved the speed, angle and size is an unknown to a great degree. We are all guessing to an extent. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong because neither of us has concrete proof. It's opinion verses opinion at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by amygdule on Apr 18, 2022 7:30:24 GMT -5
James vs James...LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 18, 2022 8:58:26 GMT -5
It's all theoretical vegasjames . I will gladly admit to not having any absolute proof. Impact science is nebulous at best even if you know the projectile's materials involved the speed, angle and size is an unknown to a great degree. We are all guessing to an extent. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong because neither of us has concrete proof. It's opinion verses opinion at this point. It is all hypothetical, not theoretical. And this has been my point. You keep presenting our hypotheses and fact and in essence telling me I am wrong if I disagree at all even though there is no real evidence to conclude what formed the bays. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 18, 2022 10:39:07 GMT -5
It's all theoretical vegasjames . I will gladly admit to not having any absolute proof. Impact science is nebulous at best even if you know the projectile's materials involved the speed, angle and size is an unknown to a great degree. We are all guessing to an extent. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong because neither of us has concrete proof. It's opinion verses opinion at this point. It is all hypothetical, not theoretical. And this has been my point. You keep presenting our hypotheses and fact and in essence telling me I am wrong if I disagree at all even though there is no real evidence to conclude what formed the bays. My viewpoint is purely theoretical. I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts. The only issues that are hypothetical is some of the debate you and I have had regarding their creation or that they are not impacts. |
|
wampidytoo
has rocks in the head
Add 5016 to my post count.
Member since June 2013
Posts: 709
|
Post by wampidytoo on Apr 18, 2022 14:55:35 GMT -5
I am not assuming because I am always wrong when I assume so I am going to call it an opinion. The old timers here know I have an opinion about everything and have even been correct once or twice.
There are a couple of positives here. One is that something formed them. I have no knowledge beyond that but we have very limited possibilities. There are billions of things that did not form them and with my limited knowledge of the subject I still know they were formed by something way way bigger than a back hoe.
All I can come up with is things falling from the sky or glacial push and gouging which can do some really strange s... but generally in a north south movement.
Ok, I am awake again. I did not read from page one (who has that much time to sleep) so I may have missed something but would love to hear about any other possibilities.
Hello again Jamesp and vegasjames. I want you two to know that you caused me to fall asleep, tip to the right and end up with my head leaning against a shelf which gave me a large crease on the side of my head. Please don't do that again. People laugh at me and no, I do not remember how many times it has happened.
Jim/James/wampidy
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 18, 2022 18:45:40 GMT -5
It is all hypothetical, not theoretical. And this has been my point. You keep presenting our hypotheses and fact and in essence telling me I am wrong if I disagree at all even though there is no real evidence to conclude what formed the bays. My viewpoint is purely theoretical. I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts. The only issues that are hypothetical is some of the debate you and I have had regarding their creation or that they are not impacts. Once again, hypothetical and not theoretical. A theory requires some solid evidence to back the hypothesis, which simply does not exist. If you can show some evidence that is specific to a impact event such as the list I have given several times and for which no evidence has been shown, then this could raise your hypothesis to the level of a theory. Therefore, your hypothesis at this point remains hypothetical, not theoretical.
As for your comment "I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts.", this is a great example of my point. Once again you are presenting your hypothesis as fact when there is no solidi evidence to indicate this is an impact event. As has been pointed out various times already, these depressions could have been formed from a variety of things. And there is no evidence of an impact event such as deformation features that would be a hallmark of such an event, evidence of major flooding, evidence of a shockwave, evidence that the depressions if the silt were removed that would be deep enough to be consistent with such an impact event, evidence of the elipitcal field consistent with such an impact event, lack of evidence of a 180 degree primary ejection from such a shallow impact, no evidence that the dating of these depressions that vary by 54,000 years is inaccurate, and no explanation for the 2 different directions of the bays that would have to indicate more than one shallow strike in totally different locations. In other words not a single solid piece of evidence to indicate an impact even on the ice sheet that is being claimed.
Furthermore, let's assume for a second that this was an impact event on the ice cap by a comet and not a meteorite. A comet is made up of ice and bits of space rock. Space rock is almost always high in nickel, which is rare naturally on Earth. Therefore, if this was an impact event from a comet there would still be a deposition of nickel from the impact at both the impact site and at the bays just like how the Sudsbury impact deposited so much nickel that it is major mining location for nickel. So here is yet another opportunity for you to present some credible evidence of an impact event. Show deposition of nickel in either the supposed impact site or the bays, which would likely be from an impact as naturally occurring terrestrial nickel is very rare.
So far you have yet to provide even a single shred of solid evidence of an impact event. Depressions that occur in two different directions that date with age differences over 54,000 years that you still have not shown any evidence of being inaccurate is not proof of an impact event. Again, various hypotheses that could explain these shallow depressions have been proposed and i can still think of others. Therefore, it takes more than shallow depressions to shallow for the proposed impact event to verify the hypothesized impact event. And therefore, the impact event remains hypothetical as there is no evidence to raise this hypothesis to the level of a theory. And therefore, you should not present a hypothetical situation ad a fact since they are so far from the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 18, 2022 19:05:21 GMT -5
I am not assuming because I am always wrong when I assume so I am going to call it an opinion. The old timers here know I have an opinion about everything and have even been correct once or twice. There are a couple of positives here. One is that something formed them. I have no knowledge beyond that but we have very limited possibilities. There are billions of things that did not form them and with my limited knowledge of the subject I still know they were formed by something way way bigger than a back hoe. All I can come up with is things falling from the sky or glacial push and gouging which can do some really strange s... but generally in a north south movement. Ok, I am awake again. I did not read from page one (who has that much time to sleep) so I may have missed something but would love to hear about any other possibilities. Hello again Jamesp and vegasjames. I want you two to know that you caused me to fall asleep, tip to the right and end up with my head leaning against a shelf which gave me a large crease on the side of my head. Please don't do that again. People laugh at me and no, I do not remember how many times it has happened. Jim/James/wampidy You know people pay really good money for things that will help them sleep. You should be thanking us for helping you out for free.
Falling from the sky is a possibility, although that still does not mean an impact event on an ice sheet. Again, a volcano erupting under the ice sheet could have ejected the ice or a comet could have broken up over the area without an impact on the ice sheet. So there are still multiple possibilities if going with the falling from the sky hypothesis.
And there is still the sinkhole hypothesis as we have seen that the area does have a lot of limestone and acidic water, which is a combination that leads to sinkholes that from what I have read are common in the area.
I also find it interesting that the two directions they bays are directioned in go along the natural flow of rivers from North to South, which can also cut through granite. So another hypothesis could be that there was once an underground river running from the Great Lakes to the Gulf. Over time that river became above ground rivers such as the Mississippi, and parts of the old underground river started to collapse forming these depressions.
As we can see, there are so many possibilities as to what could have formed these depressions. So far there is insufficient evidence though to pinpoint their formation to any of the various hypotheses that have been presented. And I still have yet to see even a single piece of solid evidence to back the ice sheet impact hypothesis based on science has shown about the effects of impact events such as shock deformation, shock wave effects, crater formation, impact field characteristics, etc. If someone can show me any credible, solid evidence to back the ice cap impact hypothesis then I would look at this differently. So far though, there has not been a single shred of credible and solid evidence presented to back the ice sheet impact hypothesis. Simply having shallow depressions with vastly different ages going in 2 different directions is not evidence of an impact event.
|
|
|
|
Post by hummingbirdstones on Apr 18, 2022 20:27:58 GMT -5
I am not assuming because I am always wrong when I assume so I am going to call it an opinion. The old timers here know I have an opinion about everything and have even been correct once or twice. There are a couple of positives here. One is that something formed them. I have no knowledge beyond that but we have very limited possibilities. There are billions of things that did not form them and with my limited knowledge of the subject I still know they were formed by something way way bigger than a back hoe. All I can come up with is things falling from the sky or glacial push and gouging which can do some really strange s... but generally in a north south movement. Ok, I am awake again. I did not read from page one (who has that much time to sleep) so I may have missed something but would love to hear about any other possibilities. Hello again Jamesp and vegasjames. I want you two to know that you caused me to fall asleep, tip to the right and end up with my head leaning against a shelf which gave me a large crease on the side of my head. Please don't do that again. People laugh at me and no, I do not remember how many times it has happened. Jim/James/wampidy Dang Jim, I sure have missed you!  |
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 18, 2022 21:37:30 GMT -5
Did he just postulate an antithetical?  |
|
.
