4 ms·

> What do you find disatisfactory about the conventional explanation that the Carolina bays are thermokarsts? For one, the bays don't look like thermokarsts, a

> What do you find disatisfactory about the conventional explanation that the Carolina bays are thermokarsts? For one, the bays don't look like thermokarsts, and for another the bays look like they "aim" at the impact sites, and they seem to form perimeters centered on the impact sites. That's highly suggestive. > 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. I've no idea who they are. None. Is Zamora one of them? Can you tell me more about them? Everything I've seen is that he is very careful in what he says, and I've seen nothing from him about advanced civilizations. > Meanwhile the alternative explanation that the AMOC was choked out by freshwater melting off the glaciers is very tidy I agree with this. But that doesn't explain the Carolina bays, and the two things can have happened close enough in time, possibly for the same root reasons (impacts).

maxbond 2y ago
> For one, the bays don't look like thermokarsts But they also don't look like craters? They don't look so dissimilar from thermokarsts, but craters really as a rule are circular. > the bays look like they "aim" at the impact sites Hey I'm just curious, did you look at the photos I posted? I know I wrote quite a bit, did you see where I raised questions about this specifically? See this section from the Wiki article on the Carolina bays: > Modern thermokarst lakes are common today around Barrow (Alaska), and the long axes of these lakes are oblique to the prevailing wind direction. Are they "aiming at the impact site" or are they "oblique to the direction of the prevailing winds?" They look parallel to me. Wind is parallel in a local area. Shot from a nearby airburst is radial, and very much not parallel. Shot from a faraway airburst might be parallel, but you won't be able to tell because it'll produce circular craters, which isn't what we have. > Can you tell me more about them? Only what's in the YDIH Wikipedia article. > [P]ossibly for the same root reasons (impacts). I mean, we know about a different phenomenon that was going on that has a tendency to form lakes and pour huge amounts of freshwater into the oceans, right? Do we really have to assert that this comet exists in order to arrive at a plausible explanation? If not, then why are we bringing in the comet?

maxbond 2y ago

> For one, the bays don't look like thermokarsts But they also don't look like craters? They don't look so dissimilar from thermokarsts, but craters really as a rule are circular. > the bays look like they "aim" at the impact sites Hey I'm just curious, did you look at the photos I posted? I know I wrote quite a bit, did you see where I raised questions about this specifically? See this section from the Wiki article on the Carolina bays: > Modern thermokarst lakes are common today around Barrow (Alaska), and the long axes of these lakes are oblique to the prevailing wind direction. Are they "aiming at the impact site" or are they "oblique to the direction of the prevailing winds?" They look parallel to me. Wind is parallel in a local area. Shot from a nearby airburst is radial, and very much not parallel. Shot from a faraway airburst might be parallel, but you won't be able to tell because it'll produce circular craters, which isn't what we have. > Can you tell me more about them? Only what's in the YDIH Wikipedia article. > [P]ossibly for the same root reasons (impacts). I mean, we know about a different phenomenon that was going on that has a tendency to form lakes and pour huge amounts of freshwater into the oceans, right? Do we really have to assert that this comet exists in order to arrive at a plausible explanation? If not, then why are we bringing in the comet?