Evaluating Carolina Bays As Surface Features In A Distal Ejecta Blanket:
Geophysical Flow Analysis Predicts Bay Orientation,
Enables Triangulation To Causal Impact Site
Short Tile: Evaluating Carolina Bays As Surface Features In A Distal Ejecta Blanket
Michael E. Davias1 and Jeanette Gilbride2
Corresponding author address: Michael Davias, Cintos Research, 1381 Hope
Street, Stamford, CT 06907 e-mail: Michael@cintos.org
1
Cintos Research (unaffiliated)
2 North
Carolina State University
DRAFT
i
Index Terms: 5420 Impact phenomena, cratering; 6022 & 8136 Impact phenomena; 0933 Remote
Sensing; 0550 Model verification and validation; 0530 Data presentation and visualization; 1928
GIS Science; 1944 Markup Languages; 9350 North America; 5416 Glaciation
DRAFT
ii
Abstract
We present a hypothetical solution to the genesis of the Carolina bays, where those enigmatic
landforms are evaluated as surface features in a blanket of distal ejecta. A cosmic impact into the
Wisconsinan ice shield at the close of the Pleistocene era is considered here as the ejecta source.
The characteristic orientations of the bays are proposed to be artifacts of the ejecta’s momentumdriven flow direction at the moment of emplacement. An analytical model was heuristically
developed to generate ejecta emplacement orientations which reflect large-scale geophysical
flow effects, and its results were compared to empirically measured bay orientations at ~150
Carolina bay "fields" (representing many thousands of bays). Our model's predicted results
correlate well with actual bay orientations when the Saginaw area of Michigan is considered as
the location of an oblique cosmic impact. The great-circle distances separating the proposed
Saginaw impact crater and all identified Carolina bays also correlate well; the bay’s geographic
distribution is along a narrow and symmetrical pair of arcs, east and west of the proposed crater.
These positive correlations suggest that a unique geospatial relationship exists between the
proposed impact location and the Carolina bays of North America. To facilitate independent
testing of the hypothesis, a web-based version of the model was made publically available for
integration with Google Earth.
Keywords: Carolina bay, distal ejecta, impact catering, GIS, visualization, Google Earth, kml,
glaciation, North America, model verification
DRAFT
iii
Inspirational Quotation
“The Goldsboro ridge is a unique feature on the Sunderland surface and requires special
explanation whatever its origin. It must be either an erosional remnant of a once more extensive
sediment or a depositional feature. ...The Goldsboro sand overlies the Sunderland Formation
conformably. The contact is always abrupt but there is no evidence of deep channeling, basal
coarse material, and evidence of weathering at the contact. Even the Carolina Bays do not disturb
the underlying Sunderland materials.... The sand in the bay rim is not different from the
Goldsboro sand. Therefore, these Carolina Bays are merely surface features associated with the
formation of the ridge.”
[Citation: Daniels, R.B., and E.E. Gamble, 1970, The Goldsboro Ridge, an Enigma, Southeastern
Geology vol.12 (1970) pp151-158]
DRAFT
iv
1 Introduction
The Carolina bays are perhaps the most enigmatic landforms encountered on the earth. Numbering in
the hundred of thousands in North America, these depressions present a unique planform, featuring a
well-developed oval circumpheral rim. Their distinct and persistent geometry and their sheer numbers,
in combination with their sharing a common alignment in any one area, drove initial recognition of
Carolina bays as unique geological landforms. The visual photography available since the bays were
observed from the air in the early 1930’s tells only a part of the story. High fidelity digital elevation
maps created with today’s Laser Imaging and Range Detection (LiDAR) systems accentuates their
stunning planforms (Figure 1). While some of these features are easily seen in sand dunes or windoriented paleolakes, such comparisons have been found to be unsatisfactory by us. The genesis of the
Carolina bays remains today as an unsolved geological mystery.
Researches have universally considered the bays to be formed within or excised from pre-existing
hosting strata, which itself was created by well-understood fluvial and eolian deposition (Prouty, 1952;
Eyton & Parkhurst, 1975; Firestone & West, 2008]. In sharp contrast, we propose that the bays are
surface imperfections within a blanket of ballistically deposited sand and ice, and propose that the
bays were generated at time of emplacement by the energetic deflation of steam inclusions. The
authors feel this interpretation helps explain many of the bays’ physical characteristics, such as
localized bays seen at significantly different elevation, and at times intersecting or overlaying one
another. Also explained is a mechanism that could create bays on ridges, the ridges themselves being
comprised of ejecta deposition, which is our interpretation of the Goldsboro Ridge in NC [Daniels,
R.B., and E.E. Gamble, 1970].
DRAFT
1
The lack of a correlated impact structure in North America is problematic for any attempt to implicate
a cosmic impact in the genesis of the Carolina bays. Our conjecture holds that the impacting object
was a massive low-density hydrated silicate object, likely a cometary body, which impacted the earth
on a shallow angle, nearly tangential to the earth’s surface. Imaging of the surfaces of solar system
terrestrial planets and moons has show that approximately 5% of all craters are created during low
angle of incidence – oblique – impacts. These events create a set of recognizable characteristics: oval
shape, butterfly ejecta pattern, “no-fly” ejecta area up field, and “blow-out” rim down field. [Herrick,
R.R, 2009; Herrick R.R. and K. Hessen, 2003]. Recent studies suggest that impacts into solid surfaces
protected by a layer of low impedance materials generate “impact” structures that differ from the
classic crater planforms [Schultz, P. H. and A. M. Stickle, 2009]. In our specific case, we invoke the
Wisconsinan ice shield as a low-impedance layer protecting the sedimentary strata of the Michigan
basin. Excised terrestrial minerals, along with cometary minerals and glacial ice, would be intermixed
and distributed as hydrated ejecta in a butterfly flow pattern.
The ejecta curtain wall radiating outward from a cosmic impact should follow a few simple laws of
large-scale geophysical flows. If a model could be created to replicate those flows, it may be able to
predict the Carolina bays’ orientations. Positive correlations between those predictions and the bays’
actual orientation could be considered strong support for the distal ejecta hypothesis. Once engineered
and refined, the model may also be capable of triangulation to the causal crater using actual measured
bay orientations.
DRAFT
2
2 Methods
2.1 Determining the Geographical Extent of Carolina bay landforms
Using the facilities and satellite imagery of Google Earth’s Geographic Information System (GIS),
augmented with high resolution digital elevation mapping (DEM) data from the USGS, a survey was
undertaken to catalogue the full extent of Carolina bays, indexed as localized “fields” of bays.
Identifying Carolina bays on the costal plain is straightforward, given their ubiquity and solid
identification, but they are rounded in Maryland and in Georgia, presenting challenges. Also
challenging is the increasingly rough terrain seen when moving inland from the costal plain. The ejecta
blanket hypothesis maintains that the bays can persist through time only under special circumstances.
If the landing area is relatively flat and moist, they will be easily stabilized as bays. If the area is level
but dry, the blanket will be reworked by the wind into a generic dune field, obliterating any bay
formation. When the landing field is in rough terrain, we propose it is sloughed off. In many regions
we successfully pursued the search for bays by examining raised plateaus, as identified in color-ramp
hinted digital elevation maps (DEMs) as smoother regions. We suspect that more extensive access to
higher resolution DEMs (1/9 arc second), currently only available in North Carolina and Maryland,
would aid in expanding the bays’ identified range.
While there is a great deal of research discussing Carolina bays in the east, little attention has been
paid to the significant quantity of aligned, oval-shaped landforms in the Midwest [Zanner, W., 2001].
We interpret these bays as being aligned towards the north east (Figure 1), intersecting the eastern
bay’s north-west orientations, and are therefore considered by us to be vital components of the impact
crater triangulation network.
DRAFT
3
From this survey, we have created a catalogue of ~140 “Fields” of Carolina bay landforms, managed in
a spreadsheet database and also in a Keyhole Markup Language (kml) metadata file. The catalogue is
available for interactive visualization through the use of the Google Earth GIS, by referencing the kml
file available online @ http://cintos.org/ge/SaginawKML/Distal_Ejecta_Fields.kmz. A basic listing of
the fields is presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Assigning Bay Arrival Bearings
Our hypothesis that a bay’s ovoid shape represents a blemish in a distal ejecta sheet leads to a corollary
principal that the direction of arrival is displayed in the planform as a momentum artifact. We propose
that the arrival alignment is along the major axis, with the highest rim segment being down-range. To
measure and capture this “inferred” alignment, we employ a “Bearing Arrow” with a graticule as an
overlay in the Google Earth GIS visualization tool (Figure 1). The overlay is manually rotated so that it
aligns with the user’s interpretation of the bay’s orientation and the rotational value is captured in the
kml metadata of the element. Since the bays are rarely perfect ellipsoids, the interpretation is better
qualified by comparison with numerous companion bays as a “best fit”.
While the bays of North and South Carolina are seen as elongated ellipsoids, many of the bays of
Maryland and New Jersey to the north, and Georgia to the south, do not present the elongation
necessary for determining an inferred orientation. What is left, significantly, is a predisposition for
having a segment of the enclosing rim that is fatter & higher than the opposing side. For the purpose of
this discussion, we have assumed the inferred alignment of circular bays to be from the shallow side to
the fat “lip”.
DRAFT
4
2.3 Predicting Carolina bay Orientations
Previous attempts by others at triangulation using the bays’ orientations have failed to produce a focus.
We propose this to be caused by several large-scale geophysical flow properties not considered. First,
that the impact may have been an oblique event, which would infer a chaotic focus. Secondly, the earth
rotates during any realistic ejecta loft time. [Wilbur , K.E. and P.H. Schultz, 2002]. A third variable is
the proper accounting for the west-to-east ground-velocity difference between the ejection site and the
landing site, which will be resolved as the ejecta re-enters the atmosphere and strikes the earth. Also a
factor is the interpretation of a given bay’s inferred orientation, as the bays rarely present a
geometrically pure ovoid form [Eyton, J.R. and Parkhurst, J.I., 1975]. This is especially true at the
northern edge of their eastern range, where we interpret bays as being “squashed” along the arrival
bearing.
2.4 Systematic by Loft Time Adjustment
The kinematic Coriolis force is applied to an object to “force” it along a great circle path as it proceeds
along a trajectory. For example, if an object is launched with sufficient velocity on an azimuth of 90
degrees from latitude 45º north (i.e. due East), it will follow a great circle route as it begins to circle the
earth’s surface. The Cartesian coordinate “bearing” of our example object begins to “turn” south, and
eventually the object will cross the equator on an azimuth 45 degrees increased, or 135 degrees. During
an ejecta loft period the earth would be rotating from the west to the east beneath the ejecta’s trajectory
path. The landing location of the ejecta will actually be westward of the initial “target”, although it
would be imprinted with the arrival bearing to the initial target site. We consider that imprinted value
to be our “baseline” bearing, which is further refined in the model’s next step.
DRAFT
5
2.5 Systematic by Latitude Adjustment
While Coriolis force components are systematic by loft time, there is another factor superimposed on
alignment that is systematic by latitude [Prouty, 1952]. Here, we account for ground speed differences
between any two particular spots on the earth, which is a function of the cosine of the locations’
latitudes. The end cases are the poles – where the ground velocity w>e due to rotation is negligible –
and the equator – where the ground speed w>e is ~1,670 km per hour.
In our specific proposal, a relevant set of w>e velocities would be the Saginaw crater – rotating at
1,270 km/hr – and a generic ejecta field such as Bishopville – rotating at 1,382 km/hr. A droplet of
ejecta traveling from the north to the south in its great-circle frame of reference would not be affected
by that ground and atmospheric speed difference until it approaches the surface of the earth, where
atmospheric breaking effects on terminal velocity would be applied. Figure 2 attempts to explain the
adjustments we apply to the Systematic by Loft’s baseline bearing to generate a final bearing
prediction for a particular bay.
2.6 Spreadsheet-based Analytical Model
We present a model for an ejecta curtain wall radiating outward from an impact site that applies those
two geophysical flow adjustments discussed above. Assuming it accurately replicates those flows, it
should be able to predict the Carolina bays’ orientations. We maintain that a positive correlation
between those predictions and the bays’ actual orientation should be considered strong support for the
distal ejecta conjecture.
Our bay field catalogue spreadsheet was extended to generate predictions based on the loft and latitude
adjustments discussed above, allowing for a simultaneous solution to all fields in the database against
DRAFT
6
variables such as proposed impact location, average ejecta velocity and terminal velocity. Those
variables were adjusted until all empirically measured alignments were within the calculator's
predicted values. Charts are generated within the spreadsheet to correlate the predicted values with
those measured empirically, offering an opportunity to tune the calculator’s input variables to identify
best-fit solutions simultaneously across all bay fields. The spreadsheet also generates catalogue-wide
sets of Google Earth KML to visualize the model’s output in the GIS tool. The model is heuristically
focused on the latitude and longitude of the proposed Saginaw crater’s three control points (NE,
Centroid and SW).
2.7 Tool for Independent Testing of Hypothesis
To facilitate independent testing of the hypothesis, a web-based version of the model has been made
available for integration with Google Earth’s GIS: (http://cintos.org/java/PredictBearings). Using the
Google Earth “Placemark” metadata element, a bay’s latitude and longitude are captured and
annotated. The analytical model processes the placemark and generates a predicted orientation for
visualization in Google Earth. The calculator can also reverse the process, and provide a “walk-back”
to a putative crater by processing a user-adjusted Bearing Arrow element as the input datum. In all
cases, the data transfer is accomplished by using Google Earth kml metadata.
3 Results
3.1 Initial Identification of the Cosmic Impact Location
Using the empirically measure arrival bearings of an initial 40 Carolina bay fields, we generated great
circle paths for visualization in Google Earth. This yielded a fuzzy triangulation locus at 43.5 north,
89.5 west. Our analysis implies that this simple great circle bearing triangulation would yield an
DRAFT
7
erroneous “surrogate” impact crater location. The Systematic by Loft Time concept places the actual
impact crater somewhere along a path extending due east from the surrogate crater location. We
heuristically examined various geological depression found along that transit, and selected the Saginaw
area of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula (LP) for further analysis. Our proposed impact site represents
approximately a 22 minutes loft time offset (equating to 5.5 degrees longitude rotation). Further
refinement using the Systematic by Latitude concept in our analytical model is shown to reduce the loft
time to a more realistic 4 to 10 minutes.
3.2 Correlation of Bay Distribution
The flight lines, distances and bearings of all catalogued Carolina bay fields were analyzed for
correlation to the proposed surrogate impact crater site. Our first correlation considered the great circle
distance from each field back to the proposed impact site and their symmetrical distribution around it.
As shown in figure 3, a very high degree of correlation is seen, suggesting that the bays are geographic
distributed along a narrow and highly symmetrical pair of “butterfly” arcs centered on the triangulated
Saginaw impact location. Such a distribution is suggested in the current research on oblique impacts.
The lack of ejecta directly down-range in the “blow-out” zone is expected. Loft distance to the
Midwest are nearly identical to those in Southeastern areas, suggesting a general trend of longer loft
distances down range compared to those oblique to the crater’s major axis in the Northeast, where the
shortest loft distances are documented. We note that areas north of the impact site’s latitude were
covered in glacial ice sheet, prohibiting formation of identifiable bays in those areas.
3.3 Correlation of Bay Orientations
The ~140 evaluated bay “fields” represent many thousands of individual bays, and our solution sets
are computed for all fields simultaneously. The chart in Figure 4 shows the results using our current
DRAFT
8
best-fit parameter settings of 3km/sec average ground velocity and a droplet Cd of 0.3 (yielding a
terminal velocity of ~270 m/sec). A high degree of correlation is shown between the empirically
measured bearings and the predicted bearings. While it would seem plausible that the ejecta at any
given location may actually have a density or velocity different from other locations, the model did not
have to leverage such fine-tuning to arrive at satisfactory solutions for all evaluated fields.
4 Discussion
4.1 The Saginaw Impact Crater
The authors are quite respectful of the long-standing acceptance of the Saginaw area as a glacially
carved landscape. Our proposal leverages the presence of a multi-kilometer thick ice sheet over the LP
at impact dates between 20kya to 40kya. The ice sheet offers a rationale for the relatively shallow
“crater” seen in the area today, while at the same time providing the significant volume of water
necessary to create the posited hydrated slurry. Implicating the ice sheet also provides a vehicle to redistribute the local crater ejecta across a wide area as “glacial till”. Figure 5 presents a cross-section
schematic of the proposed crater.
The bedrock across the central LP is composed of later, more solidified carbonate rocks, whereas the
older underlying rocks are softer shales and sandstones built up prior to the origins of life. It is
generally understood that ice age glacial activity removed vast quantities of the softer strata from
around the basin’s periphery (i.e., Lake Michigan and Lake Huron), but they were unsuccessful in
breaching the carbonate layers’ cuestas encircling the center of the basin with one major exception –
Saginaw Bay [Rieck and Winters, 1982],
DRAFT
9
Using remote imaging tools, we have noted that the Saginaw region exhibits a geometrically oval
shaped depression, oriented SW to NE, which correlates well with our Carolina bay “butterfly”
distribution symmetry. We note the strong geometric trend correlation with our proposed oval crater
across the northern and southern rims, as well as its overlap of the Kankakee Torrent source at the
southwestern end. Experimental and planetary imaging has identified oblique impact craters as
displaying the deepest excavation at the up range end of the crater, which here falls in the northeast
end of our proposed Saginaw crater. This point correlates with one of the deepest areas of Lake Huron
– the Bay City Basin. Another common attribute of an oblique impact is the existence of a slight ridge
– likely rebounded strata – tracing a line down the center of the structure. Here, the Charity Islands are
set in the bay along the oval’s centerline.
We fully expect that the Huron lobe of the Ice sheet would have eventually advanced into the
excavated crater from the Huron basin in the northeast, bulldozing the collapsed ice crater ramparts
and leaving the existing set of terminal moraines behind as it deglaciated at the onset of the Holocene.
A significant list of geological anomalies has been identified and is available for review on our web
site’s Saginaw Crater section.
4.2 Timing of the Manifold – some constraints
We propose that all Carolina bay landforms were formed in a few short moments during the late
Pleistocene era, 20 kya to 40 kya.

Researchers are confident that the “Saginaw Lobe” of the ice sheet was removed prior to 15
kya, as indicated by dated flows into the area from the Michigan and Erie lobes [Brown, S. E.,
et al, 2006]. We propose that the impact event was responsible for that removal at a time
inconsistent with the continued presence of the Michigan and Huron/Erie lobes.
DRAFT
10

Our scenario suggests that the “crater” in the ice sheet would have filled with liquid water and
then eventually drained disruptively to the south in an event know as the Kankakee Torrent,
which occurred sometime prior to18 kya.

The bays in Nebraska have been identified as paleobasins formed prior to Wisconsinan
deposition of a losess blanket dated at ~ 27 kya [Kuzila, M.S., 1994].

Ancient Baldcypress trees found buried under 10 meters of white sand in the PeeDee river area
of North Carolina are dated as being 25 to 40 thousand years old. [Stahle, D.H., 2005]
5 Conclusion
Our hypothesis holds that 20 kya to 40 kya a catastrophic impact manifold deposited a blanket distal
ejecta up to 10 meters deep in a set of butterfly arcs across the continental US. We have modeled the
blanket as a ballistically deposited hydrous slurry of sand and ice originating from a cosmic impact
into the Wisconsinian ice sheet, and propose that Carolina bay landforms were created during the
energetic deflation of steam inclusions at the time of ejecta emplacement. In geographic areas
presenting a favorably level hosting terrain and a relatively high water table, the paleobasin
foundations of the bays were found to have persisted over the intervening millennia, in spite of being
overlain with losess and subjected to water and wind erosion and reworking.
A analytical model was developed to predict the expected trajectories and emplacement orientation
characteristics of the hypothetical ejecta blanket, and was expanded to "reverse" the geophysical flows,
such that a given bay’s empirically measured orientation could be used to generate a "walk-back"
triangulation trajectory to validate the impact site identification within Google Earth’s GIS viewer. As
the model was researched, progress was shared with the Google Earth Community through a thread,
Inferred Orientation of Distal Ejecta.
DRAFT
11
We presented evidence that, when applying a unique combination of impact location (Saginaw),
average ejecta curtain wall velocity (3 km/sec) and ejecta terminal velocity (270 m/sec), the model’s
prediction of any given bay’s orientation correlates well with the empirically measured orientation of
that bay. Significantly, the correlation is seen at all ~140 disparate clusters of Carolina bays in our
catalogue. We also note that the distribution of bays is highly symmetrical around the proposed
impact’s azimuth.
The authors maintain that the correlations presented here demonstrate that a unique geospatial
relationship exists between all known Carolina bays and the Saginaw region, a result that presents a
strong argument for the ejecta blanket manifold hypothesis. Further research is proposed to investigate
- in the context of our hypothesis - the true geomorphological nature of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula
and of the enigmatic Carolina bays.
6 References
Brown, S. E., Newell, W. L., Stone, B. D., Kincare, K. A., and O'Leary, D. W., 2006, New regional
correlation of glacial events and processes in the interlobate area of southern Michigan and
northern Indiana after the last glacial maximum (LGM), Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Programs, v. 38, no. 4, p. 58
Daniels, R.B., and E.E. Gamble, 1970, The Goldsboro Ridge, an Enigma, Southeastern Geology vol.12
(1970) pp151-158
Eyton, J.R. and Parkhurst, J.I., 1975, A Re-evaluation of the Extra-terrestrial Origin of the Carolina
Bays, Occasional Publication, Dept. of Geography Paper No. 9, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, p 45
DRAFT
12
Herrick R.R. and K. Hessen, 2003, The Impact Angles Of Different Crater Forms On Mars, Lunar and
Planetary Science XXXIV, pp 2122.pdf
Kuzila, M.S., 1994, Inherited Morphologies Of Two Large Basins In Clay County, Nebraska, Great
Plains Research 4 (February 1994): p 51-63
Prouty, W. F., 1952, Carolina Bays and their Origin, Geological Society of America Bulletin vol. 63,
no. 2, pp. 167–224.
Rieck, R.L. and H. A. Winters, 1982, Characteristics of a Glacially Buried Cuesta in Southeast
Michigan, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp.
482-494
Schultz, P. H. and A. M. Stickle, 2009, Lost Impact, AGU Fall Meeting 2009, Presentation ID#
PP33B-04
Stahle, D.H., et al, 2005, Ancient Baldcypress Forests Buried in South Carolina, on line @
http://www.uark.edu/dendro/subfossil.pdf
Wilbur , K.E. and P.H. Schultz, 2002, The Effect Of The Coriolis Force On Distal Ejecta Deposits On
Mars, Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIII, pp 1728.pdf
DRAFT
13
7 Appendix A
http://cintos.org/Papers/GRL_Submission/Field_List.pdf
List of Carolina bay fields under evaluation
8 Figures
Figure 1 – Defining Carolina bay Orientations
Clay County, Nebraska area Color Ramp DEM using NED 1/3 arcsec datum prepared in Global
Mapper . Shown are numerous paleobasins similar to eastern Carolina bays. The “Bearing Arrow”
overlay shown allows for assigning an arrival bearing as interpreted by the user.
Figure 2– Bearing Prediction Trigonometry
At time of atmospheric re-entry into the 165-km/hr west-to-east “slipstream”, the ejecta’s trajectory
will be skewed. In this case the velocity difference was addative to the ejecta’s w>e velocity vector,
and our prediction calculation needs to subtract it back out. Since the n>s velocity vector is constant,
the effective alignment rotates slightly clockwise.
The graphic uses metrics of Wagram, NC:
Crater Latitude:
bay Latitude:
Droplet Cd:
3-D Terminal Velocity:
In Ground Plane:
W>E component:
Ground Velocity Delta:
De-Skewed W>E
Inferred Bearing:
DRAFT
43.6º
34.9º
0.3
330.0 m/s
233.0 m/s
165.0 m/s
44.0 m/s
121.0 m/s
135.0º
14
De-Skewed Bearing:
143.9º
Figure 3– Distribution of Carolina Bays Around Saginaw Crater
Distribution of bays demonstrates geospatial symmetry around the proposed Saginaw crater. Note that
glacial ice coverage prohibited bay formations in more northerly areas. Areas directly down the
impactor’s arrival azimuth were in the “blow-out” zone, where little ejecta is expected. The graphic
can be re-created in Google Earth using the kml file:
http://cintos.org/ge/SaginawKML/Ejecta_Butterfly.kmz
Figure 4 - Correlation of Predicted Bay Orientations to Measured
Figure 4 plots the model’s predicted arrival bearing at each field, assuming it had been ejected from the
crater’s centroid (green line), against the empirically measured inferred orientation at that field (blue
line). The purple and red lines represent the bearing predicted for ejecta lofted from the northeast and
southwest ramparts of the crater, and are effective control bounds for the fuzzy orientations expected
from a large impact. Vertical axis displays the arrival bearing in degrees. Horizontal axis displays the
state names of the bay fields, ordered clockwise from New Jersey.
Figure 5– Impact Crater Cross-section cartoon
An oblique strike into a thick continental ice sheet over the proposed Saginaw region would first excise
1 to 2 km of ice before penetrating into terrestrial sedimentary layers. Local ejecta will be deposited on
the ice sheet, allowing for eventual distribution as common glacial till.
DRAFT
15
DRAFT
16