John L

One thing: if the initial impact is somewhere else, or if the impactor detonates in the atmosphere, the residue, which would have created all those other craters/bays, would have far less kinetic energy, or size, and thus make smaller secondary craters. Did you watch the NatGeo video, which showed how small the many secondary craters were? You really should watch it if you haven't yet. And there has been more than one major impactor event, because there are many examples of overlapping craters which are laid down over other, older ones. Also, if you rely completely on Wikipedia, which is a site where people contribute to it, you will also tend to get whatever they wish to contribute. The global warming fiasco is a classic case in point, and Wikipedia still has not gotten over it.

Correct! This is a whole lot more logical than some hypothetical 'oceanic currents', or 'gas pockets' theory, which are even harder to prove. This reminds me of the Permian Extinction event, and how the anti-celestial folks tend to write it off. To them it was caused by the massive Siberian Fault volcanic eruptions. Well, so what? Anyone, who looks at the Permian event has a pretty good idea where it occurred(Antarctica). And if one looks to the opposite side of the globe, one will find the Siberian area where all those volcanoes were set off. Now just what could have possibly caused it, if the impact crater was at the opposite side of the planet? Well, first of all, the planet has a thin crust, and shock waves tend to ripple outward in all directions. And where will all those ripples finally end up, all at once? If you say Siberia, YOU WIN!! And with all that shock striking all at once, does anyone think it just might cause the plates to open up and go haywire? The internal pressure would be enormous too. Nine of ten, or more, cataclysmic events are the result of celestial means, in one form or another.

I'm sorry, but theses are clearly impact sites. The odds of all of them being shaped the way they are, and tending to be patterned on like axis, is obviously not a random creation caused by 'terrestrial processes'. These are the result of 'celestial processes'. And what do these 'so called' terrestrial processes represent anyway: oceanic movement; underground release of hydrate gas pockets; or other unknown acts? These are all the result of one or more larger impacts from celestial events. If they aren't from an immediate, and larger, impact, they are obviously from an air burst, which threw out many smaller objects, impacting onto the planet's surface. I don't understand why so many people find it so difficult to conceive of the notion that we are being bombarded from space, on certainly an irregular basis. And there is even the possible conjecture that comets tend to be disturbed on a regular basis, either through movement up and down the galactic plane, or perhaps the presence of something like a brown dwarf that has an elongated orbit of our sun that may be every thirty to thirty-two million years. And these comets tend to move into the gravity well, where some of them wind up colliding with our planet, causing mass extinctions. I'm sorry, but this to me is as elemental as the nose on one's face. And until someone can prove that these 'bays' are caused by something terrestrial, beyond reasonable doubt, I'm going to go with the Celestial Impact cause. But let me go over one of the things mentioned in Wikipedia you want to follow: And keep in mind that just because Wikipedia said it doesn't make it the gospel. Their issue with the global warming debate proves this already. But take this part: As for the part about there being no meteorite fragments, perhaps these have not been found yet. Perhaps a good deal of this could have been from some of all that ice sheets being blown away due to the initial impact. Once ice melts, it leaves only water behind. And perhaps an air burst could have accomplished this, leaving little remains in concentration. The Tunguska event in Siberia is less than one hundred years old, and the remains there are scanty because it was an air detonation. And the Wikipedia insert also claims that the bays are too shallow for them to have been impact craters. That assumes there is no such thing as weathering by a planet that constantly weathers everything else on the surface. And within an area where there is abundant rainfall, weathering would be extensive to say the least. I just don't understand the lack of reason when it comes to impacts and impactors.

Thank you Moderation Section: you have managed to use your heavy hand by forcing the 'so called' separation of religion and science, with the stroke of a movement. By attempting to totally separate religion from science, done 'our way', you have taken a thread and managed to create derision amongst the participants. Like it or no, there is a connection between religion and science, even though there are many fundies, or atheists, who will try to make it all one sided. But the simple truth is that there really is a logical, and fair, accommodation between all. Now you have forced the issue, based upon your own prejudices. Instead of gently nudging the members into keeping the science first and foremost, by using reason first, threats second, and action LAST, you are showing everyone else that you are just as dogmatic as the very ones you are attempting to control. This is my last post on this ruined thread. Congratulations! PS: I am saving this post, just in case you decide to use your Statist approach to dissent. I'll then start a complaint thread about my thoughts.

My guess is that the white marks are the result of someone studying the photo. Note the same marks on irrigation squares not associated with the circles. Here is what unmarked photos look like. As for the age of the bays, clearly there are multiple strikes associated with them. many of the bays are overlapping, and some are inside others, so they were almost certainly the result of more than one Impactor strike. If you study the picture above closely, you can see older circles, and newer circles that are overlapping older ones. By using the oval shape of the bays, it is easy to orient it to the direction from whence the objects originated. And the majority of the latest ones appear to originate from a common source, the so called Saginaw site. Also, the latest ones are much more recent than perhaps others, indicating a strike at the trailing end of the more recent Wisconson(Wurm) stage of the Pleistocene. But in answer to JohnB's question about an impactor on the ice sheet, it's size, impression on the geology, and spread of debris, the answer would be the size and kinetic energy of the inpactor. Let's say the Saginaw site, or any other site on or above the area, are within the time frame of the Pleistocens(2.5 million years bp), then the odds are at least 90% that they occurred over the ice sheets that extended southward. Only during an interglacial, such as today's Holocene, would there be no ice present at the impactor site. This means the impactor's kinetic energy was sufficient to instantly melt the ice sheet, and continue driving into the landscape beneath it. That's a lot of kinetic energy being transfered from the object. And that would tend to throw out a lot of debris, mostly in the direction the object was traveling. That is why the bays are being used to back track to the source, by studying the shape of the craters. Now, if there are so many overlapping craters, under such a huge number of recent ones, then this is clear evidence the planet is being hit by Impactors on a regular basis, geologically. It has been several decades since Shoemaker turned things upside down with the revelation of impactors and their impact(pardon the pun) on the globe, and clearly its significance has not become fully appreciated within the scientific community even yet. I'm not a geologist(I'm a physical anthropologist), and I can see how impactors are clearly so important to how this planet has been affected. As I have stated before in another thread, we are living in one celestial shooting gallery, and assume we are not going to occasionally get a black eye, is sheer hubris on our part.

Perhaps the Carolina Bays issue deserves another separate thread. There is a great deal of recent data I need to research as well. Its been a couple of years since I followed the trails. But I mentioned that because of the Saginaw Bay crater, above where the ice sheet reached its southerly limits, could possibly be the origin of the Carolina bays. And too, I am not privy to its age either. I would like to know this as well, because if it did strike the ice sheet, it would indicate something of the size and speed of the Impactor.

You are saying that these slightly less than perfectly round circles, are the result of underwater currents? And just how did these underwater currents manage to create them? And a huge number of these occur above the ancient 'fall line'. So how did they get under water, especially so recently? But this is slightly off track other than the fact that the possible cause may have been the result of the Saginaw Impact, which would have been above the ice sheet boundary of the last recent round of the Pleistocene. Which may have something to do with the other John's question about leaving evidence of an impactor within the geologic record.

Could you be more specific here? Mass and speed will make a difference. For example asteroids, which are usually remnants of former comets, tend to be smaller, and much slower. If a comet enters our atmosphere and slams into a large ice sheet, the kinetic energy is going to be far greater. But comets tend to calve upon entry and there are usually many potential impactors. Also, have you had a chance to study the subject of Carolina Bays? George Howard has a wealth of information on this, right here. Whether this is directly linked to the 'so called' Clovis Comet, is still unknown, but clearly the evidence of multiple strikes is self-evident. Its a shame that the most vocal proponent on the Clovis Comet appears to have taken some very unscientific shortcuts, to the point where it has tainted the concept. Personally I believe this event to have occurred, causing the sudden Younger Dryas cooling. But then again, I'm one of those Impactor fanatics. Anyway, just what do you mean by 'city killer': a fifty metre object, or perhaps something much bigger? Because its just possible the Impactor actually exploded in the atmosphere and resulted in multiple strikes, which may have had more damaging consequences. Anyway, check out the images of the Carolina Bays to get a better idea of the shooting gallery we live in. Carolina Bays Images

Challenge it any way you wish. That's your privilege. And as for rises in temperature, perhaps a little thing called 'rebound' may be the cause. And to use all those spikes up and down as an explanation of Milankovich cycles........................... there are not that many parts to the cycles. I suppose you are going to write Younger Dryas off to the Milankovich cycles too?

Perhaps they really were informed, by some thing, or some one, to head that way? I'm not sure if you are steering toward the 'religious' or 'antireligious' POV, so I don't know what you want.

I agree that it is not universally accepted as that date. However, if the Jupiter/Saturn link is true, and it makes a very persuasive point, then the date will be pretty solid, even if the majority of people are unaware of it. And that still does not detract from the premises of Yeshua/Jesus being born then and there. The time is just changed, that's all.

I'm always amazed(?) at the lack of knowledge, or interest, in the importance of Impactors on the planet throughout history. In fact, if there is any one thing that has played such a profound role in history, it has to be that one thing. And there are so many that no one impact can be considered without looking at the total picture. It should be obvious that earth is moving smack dab in the middle of one huge shooting gallery, and we just dodged a bullet earlier this month in the form of 2005 YU55, which is 400 metres in diametre. All one has to do is look closely at the Lake Vostok temperature chart data, and notice all the sudden drop off of temperatures throughout the last few glaciations events. Those sudden drops are most likely not due to anything But major Impactor events, which pushed the planet off the climatic cliff. And that is why Eugene Shoemaker is one of my favorite scientists, who battled the establishment dogma, when he claimed that all the craters on the lunar landscape were not the product of vulcanization, but rather Impactor craters. And at the time he was laughed at, until we actually went to the moon and brought back evidence to back him up. Think Impactors first, when you think of major geological, or climatic, change. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Hasn't this been pretty much established for some time now? I recall one or two Science/History Channel programs that discussed the theory. And it makes sense too. Of course that doesn't detract from the possibility that it may have had a purpose . But what are you driving at here? You are just throwing out something and not giving your own hypothesis.

It's just basically a chart, with units of a substance on one side, and the change in effect on the other. Again using CO2, as the amount of CO2 is introduced into the environment, the saturation curve moves upward. But as the CO2 increases, the effect begins to level off, to the point where the more CO2 introduced, the more horizontal the curve becomes. Eventually, the more CO2 introduced, the curve stops moving upward, being level. As I have stated, there is a name for this type of effect. I just cannot remember it anymore, and would like to find it again. And it doesn't have to be CO2: it can be practically any gas.