He Studied the Carolina Bays for 10 Years. Then Reversed His Theory.

I'm in Zamora's camp 100%.

I live in western North Carolina & I have found half petrified wood in my back yard abound 3-4 feet deep that has countless little metal balls embedded all in it & I think they may be from whatever caused the bays I have also found pieces of it in the creeks around my house

I just started watching this, did anyone ever look for CBs out on the continental shelf? underwater?

I enjoy the learning about Earth History & hidden History !! Many Thanks !

If anyone has questions, you can ask them directly below!

Is that Precession on Chis' wall? nice

This is the 1st time I watched a George or Randle or Graham podcast the date that it displays on Youtube. Weird that I haven't before. This discussion was terrific. In my own research, the CBs I thought were YDB, but I had to discard the idea pretty quickly. For my own reasons. FYI, the Nebraska bays are atva considerably shorter distance from Saginaw or anywhere in Michigan. Around 300 kms closer than the coastal CBs. Michael Davias shared his CB spreadsheet with me when it had 43,900 CBs. He had tried to tie theirvheadings to Ssginaw or the Saginaw' location in Wiscinsin, but without any luck at that time. I had an idea of comparing their DISTANCES to see what it showed. I thought it would turn up an elliptial pattern. Instead, amazingly, it literally turned out the pattern was circular, not elliptical. That shocked me. There wasca centroid with a best fit, too. The average distance from the centroid was 1243 kms and change. I literally did that by trial and area, changing the centroid lat/long by smaller and smaller increments until the centroid was determined to 5 decomal place degrees N and W latitude. It was not in Saginaw or Michigan or Wisconsin but in N Illinois. Duringvthe flight, the Earth rotated undervthe ejecta, so this seemed to make sense, within my study hypothesis.

At first glance the Carolina Bays appear to be the low country version of Mima Mounds, just piles of wind driven dirt that collect around grasses in a mathematically repetitive way like fractals to create regular round mounds through iterative recursive occurrence. Except these are big upside down Mima Mounds and instead of dirt, wind and low plants or grasses as the formative basis, they're a combination of dirt, wind and water supplemented by as yet unknown plant, animal, coral, stromatolite or other biological growth compounded by climate, environment and geologic action. The tektites may simply be a red herring, evidence of age and longevity of the bays rather than the cause. Think fairy rings, rather than sand ripples and dunes. Like Mima Mounds, the Carolina Bays are found in many places around the world characterized as windy and wet, and not-mountainous. They're both ephemeral phenomena and while Mima Mounds appear to be size limited by plant collector species and wind velocity, the bays grow and overwrite themselves with time. Mima Mounds don't appear to form in areas that have become forests but they're common in meadows around forests, likely because larger plants hold dirt and reduce steady directional winds while inducing turbulence. the bays may be a phenomena that is physically allowed or initially triggered by forest clearing events.

Great conversation by two of the folks that have the widest knowledge of the recent history of Carolina bays with an eye on catastrophism. Allow me to drop a few additional details that I feel are relevant. Chris’s full discussion moves further back from the coast from the “Surf Zone” that was carving out the scarps identified. Bays created on land exposed to the full force of Atlantic storm surf were likely fully excised. But the high sea level also rose at 120,000 and 400,000 years ago behind the barrier islands, where the pre-existing basins were effectively inundated & “buried” under new washed-in sediments. Over the intervening millennia, erosion has exposed the buried rims in what is termed “unroofing”. Chris has correctly identified such relic bays in the Myrtle Beach areas that had seen higher sea levels in estuaries, but not exposed to the surf zone. This mystery would likely be solved if USA geologists applied their knowledge to accurately dating the vast blankets of coastal non-marine sediments they claim are “Post Miocene”, meaning younger than 5 million years, but older than OSL can date, ~300,000 years. For the past century they have failed to provide the necessary clarity. I believe the professionals have failed to date it because they can’t comprehend it all was delivered catastrophically, and the sand rejects their attempts to pin it down as a slow, gradualistic build up.

You are missing one important parameter. The land has shifted in hight, not only with sealevels but also in waves on the land itself, apart from the constant eustasity/rise. Think rings on the surfus, yet in a bowl of yello. No viscosity at all.