[Kalopin]

Turtle, on 01 December 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

please cite your source(s) for the geomorphology of the depressions that you assert. my please notwithstanding, our rules require it.
Still just looking for answers to simple questions. He stated that Earth Scientists in the 30s and 40s believed it to be meteors from a comet 12,900 yrs. ago [although more than likely these scientists in 1940 said 129 yrs. ago, that's just my opinion], as I believe history has been altered because of superstition, ignorance, religous beliefs, and recently greed.


exactly who is profitting and how in your conspiracy schema? (besides you with your book that is. )

Truths are distorted for profit, other than donations, mainly due to Government Grant money, especially in the U.S. as, I'm sure in any other countries that give money for research. What do you think would happen to their grant money, if the government found out it wasn't due to that particular area of study, but belonged to another?

[Turtle]

Kalopin, on 01 December 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Turtle, on 01 December 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

Kalopin, on 30 November 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

People have been known to be wrong before, even geologists! A few questions. Why, then aren't these features common around our planet where there are simalar circumstances? How could these "depressions" be very old, being mostly in topsoil and sand,...

please cite your source(s) for the geomorphology of the depressions that you assert. my please notwithstanding, our rules require it.

Still just looking for answers to simple questions. He stated that Earth Scientists in the 30s and 40s believed it to be meteors from a comet 12,900 yrs. ago [although more than likely these scientists in 1940 said 129 yrs. ago, that's just my opinion], as I believe history has been altered because of superstition, ignorance, religous beliefs, and recently greed.

again, what are your sources of information that describe the sediments in the carolina bays as "being mostly topsoil and sand...". no ifs ands or buts. give your source(s).

Kalopin, on 01 December 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Turtle, on 01 December 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

exactly who is profitting and how in your conspiracy schema? (besides you with your book that is. )

Truths are distorted for profit, other than donations, mainly due to Government Grant money, especially in the U.S. as, I'm sure in any other country that gives money for research. What do you think would happen to their grant money, if the government found out it wasn't due to that particular area of study, but belonged to another?

putting aside the lack of coherence in your reply, what are your sources of information that lead you to your belief?

obviously i think this is all off topic & that klap-pin is...erhm...deluded...yeah...that'll fly. good grief.

[Kalopin]

Turtle, on 01 December 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

again, what are your sources of information that describe the sediments in the carolina bays as "being mostly topsoil and sand...". no ifs ands or buts. give your source(s).



putting aside the lack of coherence in your reply, what are your sources of information that lead you to your belief?

obviously i think this is all off topic & that klap-pin is...erhm...deluded...yeah...that'll fly. good grief.

Well, the EPA says the land is filled with up to fifteen feet of highly organic peat soils [easily eroded], although I'm sure you could just google "Carolina Bays soil and sediment make-up" for yourself, just go to this site at http://abob.libs.uga...bk/bayclay.html and read their analysis. They say blue or light gray clay, black mud, and lower lake sediments [also easily eroded]. Also, I would just say that, I've seen some of the Kaolinite, and it had a red, rusty hue, obvviously iron content, that could easily be meteoritic. All the "depressions" run in the same direction, from northwest to southeast and are elliptical shaped. Sorry, but little personal attacks never help someones arguement. They should all give it up and just admit that these are craters!

[Turtle]

Kalopin, on 01 December 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:

Well, the EPA says the land is filled with up to fifteen feet of highly organic peat soils [easily eroded], although I'm sure you could just google "Carolina Bays soil and sediment make-up" for yourself, just go to this site at http://abob.libs.uga...bk/bayclay.html and read their analysis. They say blue or light gray clay, black mud, and lower lake sediments [also easily eroded]. Also, I would just say that, I've seen some of the Kaolinite, and it had a red, rusty hue, obvviously iron content, that could easily be meteoritic. All the "depressions" run in the same direction, from northwest to southeast and are elliptical shaped. Sorry, but little personal attacks never help someones arguement. They should all give it up and just admit that these are craters!

first of all i consider your posts attacks on the integrity of our board; this never helps someone's argument. you should just give up and admit you are a deluded author.

now from your source (not from the EPA by-the-by ):

CLAY MINERALOGY OF SOME CAROLINA BAY SEDIMENTS

roy l. ingram @ university of north carolina, et al said:

...
Most of these bays are now sediment-filled shallow depressions, but some have not been completely filled and contain lakes. In each of the Carolina Bays so far examined, there is a layer of blue or light gray clay between the most recent black mud and the lower-most lake sediment. In Singletary Lake, Bladen County, North Carolina, Frey (1953) found that the blue clay contained pollen of cold climate vegetation including spruce. Material from just above the blue clay had a radiocarbon date of 10,000 years. Thus the blue clay in all the bays examined was deposited during Pleistocene time. There is considerable similarity between the blue clay layers although the bays examined were located up to a hundred miles apart.

...
The distribution features listed above are consistent, therefore, with the conclusion that the clay minerals in the bay sediments were washed or blown into the bays from the surrounding surficial sediments and that they have undergone little alteration since deposition....

did you even read this reference yourself? if the sediments are 100000 years old then they weren't deposited by a comet in 1811. moreover if they were blown in by wind, they weren't deposited by a comet at anytime. (the publish date of 1959 notwithstanding.)

moreover, per moontan's wikipedia article, more recent analysis shows...

wiki said:

...Impact geologists determined the depressions are too shallow to be impact features. Reports of magnetic anomalies turned out not to show consistency across the sites. There were no meteorite fragments or impact crater geologic structures. None of the necessary evidence for an impact was found. The conclusion was to reject the impact theory at the Carolina bays.[2]...

oh but wait...your sources are lying for profit...but they don't agree with your conclusion...but they are your sources...but you are an expert... but you have no credentials...but you have a keyboard... but you just know you are right...butt, butt, butt...