The Tusk was absolutely thrilled to see the publication last week of a paper concerning Carolina Bays in the distinguished journal,
Geomorphology,
A Model for the Geomorphology of Bays. Other than a brief role for the Carolina bays in the early papers of the Comet Research Group, and a much longer series of Geological Society of America posters laboriously researched and determinedly published by Michael Davias et. al, Zamora's journal article is the only peer-reviewed and published 'ET origin' work on bays in the last two decades — and it is a doozy.
Zamora builds on the modern work of Davias and David Kimbel, and Willam Prouty and Melton and Schriver of the first half of the 20th century, with an assist from Eyton and Parkhurst in the 70's. Each of the researchers maintained that the bays were formed at once by a barrage of material from the midwest. But, just as the early researchers ultimately decided, those alive today dismiss bays as
direct impacts of ET fragments of a comet or asteroid, and consider them to be the remnant features of
secondary impacts from the ejecta and ballistic shockwaves of northerly catastrophe. They are wise to do so. The correct theory must account for ALL the easily observed, unique characteristics of bays. [
See list of 16 from Eyton and Parkhurst here] The "wind and wave," gradual formation, theories that continue to hold sway in classrooms and publications from Ivestor and Brooks fail miserably to account for all the observed phenomena, while Zamora checks each off with ease.
