What do you find disatisfactory about the conventional explanation that the Carolina bays are thermokarsts? On a smell test level, here's a picture of a thermo

What do you find disatisfactory about the conventional explanation that the Carolina bays are thermokarsts? On a smell test level, here's a picture of a thermokarsts: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Permafrost_thaw_ponds_in_Hudson_Bay_Canada_near_Greenland.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Permafro... And here's some pictures of the Carolina bays: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RzXM7ywZkS8/WKW0zLlhU4I/AAAAAAABRyQ/Wrg9F4KqXJ4/carolina-bays-52.jpg?imgmax=1600 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RzXM7ywZkS8/WKW0zLlhU4I/A... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays#/media/File%3ARobeso2.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays#/media/File%3A... Things aren't identical just because they look alike, but again on a smell test level, it doesn't immediately strike me as implausible. I'm certainly no expert on impact craters but that doesn't really look like a field of impact craters to me. I've never seen a photo of a field of oblate impact craters. In the LIDAR you can see many of them overlap. That would suggest to me that what formed these ovals happened many times, rather than all at once. If you think about it, the way you get an oblate crater is to hit at an extreme angle, right? But if was an airburst, then the debris would be going down. So it should make circular craters. Maybe it's an airburst just off the ground, a few hundred feet up or something. That way it's close enough to spray the ground at an extreme angle. But then the Carolina bays would be very close to the epicenter. So we should see some rotation among the "craters". But they're parallel. Which would mean, if they were craters, that the blast was very far away. (In which case, they would have had time to come down in parabolic arcs, and we're back to circular craters.) If it wasn't an airburst, then it was a direct hit a mere 13k years ago. That's young enough that we should be able to find the crater. I've seen supervolcano caldera much older than that, I wouldn't imagine a crater would erode any faster. > To say that the YDIH is debunked is not true and not helpful. I dunno. This isn't a scientific observation, but there's something fishy with this hypothesis. It's being popularized by conspiracy theorists, and the Comet Research Group, some of it's proponents, were busted for faking evidence. The theory posits something really attention grabbing and dramatic, but it's also very speculative and didn't originate in physical evidence. Meanwhile the alternative explanation that the AMOC was choked out by freshwater melting off the glaciers is very tidy, there's ample physical evidence for it, and it doesn't need to bring in an unlikely and external element like a comet. This explanation amounts to, "what we know was happening at the time kept happening until that forced the environment to change, through a well established mechanism we can continue to make physical observations of today." Contrast that with, "we're going to look at a time the environment changed, and back out an explanation of why that might have happened." This just feels too convenient for me. This seems to be at least as much a vehicle for people like Hancock to claim their hypothesis - which just so happens to be a very cool and engaging story - isn't getting it's due from the scientific establishment, as it is a serious scientific endeavor to understand what happened in the Younger Dryas.