Welcome to Petroleum Geology Forums

I'm hoping someone can help me to understand what produced the topography throughout The Mississippi River Valley.

I just have a few questions. Why are there so many stratus lines that all encircle the upper right corner of Marshall County Ms.? Why do all the streams and rivers encircle this same area? Why does the land beneath Marshall County all run from east to west, and the man-made lakes appear as if the land was split apart and pulled upward?

I understand current theories say the topography of the valley was caused by an ice sheet retreating and somehow pulled the land upward against gravity and away from the equator. Is this even possible? Another says the land was slowly formed over thousands of years, but wouldn't these features have easily eroded in such a time frame?

When you follow The Tennessee River down through Alabama to where it begins to flow northward, why can you still see the old riverbed descending southward? Why does The Tennessee River flow back northward?

Before you answer, consider that I have discovered hundreds of what appears to be meteorites, impactites, and many other very unusual rocks right at the epicenter of all the stratus lines so clearly visible. Yes, it is my opinion that this topography is the result of a meteor impact! As unbelievable as this may sound, once all the evidence has been explored, there can be no other conclusion. But I am very interested in your opinion.

I have been looking for professional geologists that may have an interest in this investigation. If you may be able to help, or have any advice, it would be greatly appreciated. For more go to http://www.wix.com/koolkreations/kalopins-legacy ,documents and links, "A Few Comments on 1811" or just search, "Kalopins Legacy". The truths behind the myths...

Before I attempt to say anything about this I need to know what a stratus line is.

Darryl

OK. Interesting word. I don't remember ever hearing and even more puzzling to me is that I never thought to ask if the time boundaries on a geologic map had a name. And while I am letting my mind wander, some formations are time transgressive but I don't rember ever seeing one on a geologic map that had the time boundaries not parallel to the formation boundaries. Guess a) I haven't looked at enough geologic map or b) I didn't look closely enough. Something to check on.

Since I am a working geologist and am in the field now I don't have access to geologic maps of the area nor do I have time to look them up on the internet. That I will do sometime in the coming weeks when I get home.

What I do have time to do is to address your concept of isostatic rebound and continents rising as a consequence of the melting of continental glaciers and to ask a question.

I think you understand the idea that solids floating on a "liquid" (regardless of how viscous it might be and even hot rock is very viscous) will sink into that liquid until the presure pushing it up equals the pressure pushing it down and that if something is removed from the top of the solid (even if it is a layered solid such as a continent with a granite basement covered with sediment covered with ice) the solid will rise until a new equilibrium is reached. Thus the continents have risen slightly since the ice sheets have melted inorder to maintain the pressure equilibrium on their bottom surface. They were not "pulled" up, they were "pushed" up. You were right to question the idea that they were pulled up. One item of note here is that the amount of rebound will be more where the ice sheets were deeper than where they were thinner and since they didn't reach (or at least not very far into) the area of discussion any round would be the result of the minimizing flex between here and the areas further north.
Also, the melting of the glaciers would put enough water into the oceans that the coasts of many areas of the US have been flodded because the rise in sea level exceeded the isostatic rebound. I would certainly think this would be the case for the souther parts of the area we are discussing.

If I have not explained this to your satisfaction I will be glad to try again. I sometime sacrifice completeness for the sake of simplicity and it was the wrong thing to do.


Question: You mentioned finding meteor material in the area. I know little about finding meteor material but I would have thought that any but the most recent would have either been buried in recent sedimentation, carried off by run off, or covered over by vegetation. I don't doubt you found what you say you have but I am curious as to the method(s) you used to make the determination.

Look forward to your preplies.

Darryl

OOPS!! . You were talking about topographic lines, not formation or age boundary lines. The term stratus threw me off course.

Pending further investigation it is my opinion you are correct that a retreating ice sheet did not cause this topography. Way too far south. So what did cause it? Good question.

It looks like the drilling has slowed and will remain slow for at least the rest of the day. That will give me some time to check on the things you suggested in your last post as well as read the article you referenced in your fist post.

Darryl

Well no one can say you haven't tried!!. The only access I have to the internet is such that I can not use google earth so instead I tried a search for topograph of Mississippi Embayment. You have been busy. Unfortunately your repsondents were so busy trying to argue against your hypothis they never got around to answering your initial question - Why does the river run against "regional" slope? Perhaps I have more sympathy for your problem than most because A) I believe in anwering the simplest questions 1st and 2) about 40 years ago I was sitting in a geomorphology class, day-dreaming as usual, and noticed that the Canadian River exits the Texas Panhandle on its easter edge a good distance further north than where the river enters the Panhandle on the western edge and yet A) the river is younger than the regional slope and B) regional slope is to the south east. Why? I never really answered the quesition but did give it what the teacher thought a worthy effort. I skipped most of the classes after that, turned the paper in a month late, made an A on the final exam and in the course.

So, as soon as I can I will get a topographic map and look closely at the area you mentioned, forget about any underlying geology or large scale hypotheses and see if I can figure out why the river runs the wrong way or in other words, why at least locally, the surface has a different slope than one would expect.

Would still like information on how you determined the objects you found are meteorites.

Don't worry if it is days or weeks before I respond again. I am on a actively drilling well with only limited access to the internet.

Darryl

Hey Buddy,
I have no field experience like Darryl out there. But if you relate the meteorite find to the fact that ice sheets in Antarctica are reservoirs of meteorites and the fact that ice is believed to have covered the topography of the Mississippi Embayment, then you realize that all your evidence factors in to the explanation that the Mississippi Embayment was covered in ice for a long period of time. Since there can be a thousand meteorite falls in a century, we could say it was covered in ice for a 100,000years- which is a relatively short time period, speaking geologically- to account for your meteorite find. And Darryl's explanation of isostatic rebound should be factored in, as it is right.
When the ice melted the meteorites became a part of sediment.
Meteorite impacts produce a different kind of topography unlike anything you see there. For any idea on meteoritic or comet craters see chixculub crater.
I have only used data from your discussion on this portal. Feel free to correct me with answers and relevant questions.
Thanks.