@@PaulMetrich Hexagons and thunderbirds? How about ellipses and impacts?

@Antonio_Zamora HAVE U WATCHED A THUNDERBOLTS PROJECT VIDEO?

@Antonio_Zamora You JST GONNA FORGET ABOUT MYTHS THORS LIGHTNING BOLT ZEUSES LIGHTNING BOLT THE DRAGON IN EVERY CULTURE WATCH THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS VIDEO IT WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND IMPACTS ARE THE OLD WAY OF THINKING THEY WOULDNT MAKE ELIPSES OR HEXAGONS OR THE GRAND CANYON OR BULLSEYE CRATERS YOUR VIDEOS ARE GREAT BUT COME OUT OF MAINSTREAMS BOX.

Agreed, some are just too lazy to learn new things. The whole point of science is to keep improving! Why would closed minded people be interested?

I think impacts have had a huge effect on Earth's geology but the evidence says that ain't what made the Carolina bays. Here's a quick explanation. During the ice age, the ground along much of the east coast of North America was permafrost. That means all but the very top layer remained frozen all year round. Shallow lakes form on flat ground over permafrost during the summer. The prevailing winds push the water which gets deflected to each side by the shore of the lake. Two swirls are formed in the lake, one on each side, which then erodes the sides leaving an oval shaped lake with the long axis perpendicular to the prevailing wind. You want me to find similar features somewhere else? Are three other places enough for you? The same shapes actively being formed now in Alaska and Siberia. Look for yourself on google earth. 70°N - 155°W by the town of Atqasuk, Alaska. A delightful place, I'm sure. 73°N - 125°E by the Lena River delta in Russia. 71°N - 142°E in the Sakha Republic, Russia. You don't see them everywhere because they only form if you have permafrost, fairly flat ground, a sufficient prevailing wind and the right soil type. Furthermore, the bays couldn't have been formed by an impact. In order to form the their alignment pattern, the impact point would need to be so distant that any debris that flew far enough would have had to have been throw very high, then come almost straight down and would therefore leave round, not oval craters. And if they had somehow been caused by low angle impacts, there would be debris cones coming off of every bay on the side away from the impact, which we don't see. And there's no shatter cones or shocked quartz. I don't get paid to science, I do it for love, so I don't know if I'm one of those " "scientists" " you referred to. But I didn't refuse to look at your questions and I tried to answer them as best I could. I hope it helps.

That is the power of describing geology with a cheese sandwich. 🙂

Actually, the Carolina Bays have been seriously discussed since 1933. Probably before Randall was born.

I can understand that my opinion may be ignored or criticized because I am not a geologist, but I cannot understand why the mathematically elliptical geometry of the Carolina Bays can be ignored by geologists when it can be confirmed by fitting the bays with ellipses by the least squares method.

The convergence of some bays is by Lake Michigan: kzbin.info/www/bejne/equkpmCOepdsp8U

Thank you for the suggestion. I changed the name of the video to "Quartz Sand Hills of Bennettsville, South Carolina" and uploaded a new thumbnail. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZjFg4eLh9Jqaq8

Inside the bay, during viscous relaxation, material from various layers seep in from the sides and below, almost back to the surface level. I wouldn't want to base a conclusion from such a randomised sample, would you?

In fact the tens of thousands of years' worth of undisturbed stratigraphy (soil layers) on top of the bays demonstrates any theory claiming them produced simultaneously and recently is instantly falsified. They are not plausibly produced by wind, but that does not mean the next idea to surface is right. Both are wrong, and the actual cause remains a mystery.

I grew up in southwest Georgia and some areas have what we believed were swamps or old farm ponds with trees growing in them will have to take a look at LIDAR imagery!!!

Nice try! Explain the mathematically elliptical geometry and the radial alignment.

The exploration of the Carolina Bays will need to be an organized project with wide support. The first priority should be to date cores from the rims of many Carolina Bays to establish that they are indeed impact structures with inverted stratigraphy. Right now, many geologists oppose the impact hypothesis.

@@Antonio_Zamora yes but we can't entirely discount an impact origin if inverted stratigraphy isn't consistently found in these rims. the surficial impact cratering hypothesis (like Prouty suggested) suggests the top few layers of soil would've been blown outwards from the center and created raised rims and may not have even involved lifting and overturning a "flap" of soil near the periphery of the bays.

Good luck with your hypothesis.

The saturated ground was liquefied by the impacts that created the Carolina Bays. There was not enough resistance to create shock structures. If the projectiles were made of glacier ice there would be no siderophile elements. One instance of shocked-fractured quartz was reported: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWWWZWB5hZV5e80

Baby Jess is overrated.....

@@28704joe grow up

Plan your trip using the LiDAR visualization tool by Michael Davias for Google Earth: lidar-hrtm.cintos.org/

@@Antonio_Zamora as I was driving recently using a GPS app, I thought of how cool it would be to have a LiDAR overlay for GPS so you could visualize when you're driving through a bay.

Hello Eric. I thought of you and the Tulsa Basin during the Winter Solstice. I compared Kaczorowski's result to an ellipse four years ago ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2epd4tvndWKgqM ). At the time I did not have the Least Squares Program. I have now used a least squares fit to K's image with similar results, but the Python program does not calculate goodness of fit. I am working on that, but it is complicated.

@ always 2 steps ahead of me haha

The tens of thousands of years of undisturbed stratigraphy on top of the bays makes any connection with the YD comet strike impossible, or indeed any idea that makes them all the same age.

Definitional inquiry: Is a "meteor strike" or meteorite limited to a primary stony/iron projectile or does it include secondary projectiles such as ice?

A quick primer as you seem new to Antonio's work. It is proposed one or several cometary fragments impacted the Americas, an event happening at the time of the Younger Dryas period 12 900 years BP. Around the Great Lakes area, which was covered in an ice sheet, one or several cometary airbursts hit the ice, ejecting ice boulders which flew through the air, and where the ice chucks landed on sandy or boggy ground they formed Carolina Bays or Nebraska rainwater basins.

@@curtisnixon5313 Does it just throw ice to make the crater or is there a hydrometric factor (melting the ice to water applying hydrometric pressure) in creating the craters?

@@jamesmacdonald5556 The models in these videos have always been cracked ice or ice cubes. No melting or reshaping of the ice.

Take a look at the Convergence video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/equkpmCOepdsp8U

Not likely that a CME would cause cratering.

@@candui-7 I didn't say CME I said plasma discharge which is a magnetosphere compression event.

@@candui-7 @ThunderboltsProject

Did the plasma discharge come from the original Stonehenge in Atlantis or the copy in England?

@@angelmontgomery6168 The plasma discharge happens when the magnetosphere is compressed due to a solar event.

A Z is of that view as I recall. And I agree as liquefaction is a thing.

there are less craters on earth because earth is geologically active and has a thick atmosphere

how many people have honestly excavated a Carolina Bay hundreds of feet down?

@@erosion_of_earth Mark Boslough is one of the physicists who has questioned whether the ice boulders would have been able to penetrate through the atmosphere without breaking up. However, there is plenty of evidence that ice would have withstood the maximum dynamic pressure of re-entry. Take a look at this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqXIlYppqMudqMk

@@Antonio_Zamora Thanks, Ill check it out!

@@joeschmoe2011 Most of the ice boulders would have tumbled in the air as they re-entered the atmosphere. The rate of rotation would have been insignificant compared to the 3 or 4 kilometers per second in speed. The spin would not affect the shape of the penetration funnels significantly.

@@Antonio_Zamora ok thanks. On a previous video I think you said an estimate of the size of a meteor to impact would have been the size of Washington DC. Besides the ice boulders being ejected, how much of the remaining ice in the ice sheet would have melted because of the energy of the impact? This is assuming the ice sheet is 1 mile deep? Would fast melting of the ice been enough to cause catastrophic flooding?

@@joeschmoe2011 Here are two videos that discuss the quantification of the impact and the subsequent flooding that I posted over 5 years ago: Impact Quantification, 27/Mar/2018, kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHiUimShhNSroM0 Energy Paradox, 26/Dec/2019, kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5_LhqqEZcR2mbc

You are making a lot of obsolete arguments. I have already shown that glacier ice can withstand the maximum dynamic pressure of re-entry without breaking up. ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqXIlYppqMudqMk ) Also, you don't seem to remember things quite right. Who is Russell Carlson? Did you mean Randall Carlson?

@@Antonio_Zamora Well, you got me on Randall. Damned dyslexic fingers. Although I've stopped paying attention to him since he endorsed the Thunderstorm Generator. I don't have academic access to the papers on the subject, so I'm necessarily behind the curve. (If you could see your way to providing a link, I'd be much obliged.) Importantly, you published in 2017 and have apparently not changed your mind since then, so it's clear that I'm unlikely to have any effect. However ... 1 - Your use of ellipse aspect ratio to determine impact angle is wrong. You use a 1/sin, which only works for a cylinder, not a cone. And yes, a cylinder is a limiting case of narrow cone (half-angle equals zero) but that is not remotely useful considering the non-zero cone angle which you also use. 2 - Speaking of cones, it is clear that you allow the angle to change without justification. A perpenicular impact produces a crater depth of about 1/10 the diameter, implying a cone with a nearly 90 degree half-angle. Yet your depth profile for a 30 degree impact angle shows a depth profile with about a 45 degree half-angle, with no justification about how the angle changes. 3 - Your proposed crater profile seems really problematic in ground already "liquified" by previous strikes, since the steeper walls will collapse more easily and undercut the ejecta wall. Given the known shallow flat bottoms of the bays, the viscosity of the liquified earth must have been extremely low, allowing for almost complete infilling of the crater - but the ejecta wall is somehow immune. Also, where did the infill material come from? You need a lot. 4 - The bays show a thin sand and silt surface layer on top of much older rocks and clay, and all of the stratigraphic reports mention that the older layers are undisturbed (including shellfish and burrows), which is impossible. The craters were filled with liquified material, remember? Since bays can reach 3 miles across, the characteristic flat bottom and shallow depths on an undisturbed layer of rock or clay are simply not consistent with a truly monstrous impactor. How small do you think an impactor can be to create a crater 3 miles across at only Mach 10? 5 - Your impact video has a bunch of issues. Ice is not homogenous, but consists of grains. Strength of ice is approximately proportional to one over the square root of grain size. Your test results used ice with grain sizes of about 0.1 to 0.8 mm, while glacier ice has been reported to be an order of magnitude larger. This reduces your allowable pressures from 3 - 15 MPa to 1 - 5 MPa, which is clearly an issue. Plus, of course, your expression for dymanic pressure clearly states that it is derived for an incompressible flued, and air is compressible. Compressibility effects are important for super- and trans-sonic regimes. So your proposed ice ftagments are weaker than you argue, and the pressures exerted are larger, which is not a good combination.

@wirebrushproductions1001 You raise many issues for a KZbin comment. However, I can tell you that you can obtain ellipses by slicing cones or cylinders. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone#Projective_geometry

@@Antonio_Zamora Yes you can. But you cannot tell the slicing angle for a given ellipse unless you also know the cone angle. And you did not address that. The numbers you give are only valid for a cylinder. Or, of course, for a cone of zero angle (presumably very, very far away).

@@wirebrushproductions1001 I am retired, I can answer questions all day long, and if I get tired of it I can block people. Let us say that a Carolina Bay has a width-to-length ratio of 0.70. What angle of impact would you calculate to make a cone with that elliptical attribute? Please provide a concrete answer and don't beat around the bush.