Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XonikzD t1_itgq8ka wrote

Looking at the area from Google Earth satellite imagery makes me wish someone would dig out one of the circles down to 200ft with a well drill. I think it looks like a buried forest. It would make more sense if that was true because of how capillary action for moisture around buried logs shows as deeper seasonal root matter presenting cyclical growth above the surface.


worotan t1_ithy54n wrote

But for how long would a buried forest continue to retain enough cohesion in its matter to create an analogous pattern above?

And how would a forest be buried intact with no destruction or disruption of its matter, so that it could create a pattern that looks like upright tree trunks?


XonikzD t1_itiy3ly wrote

Lots of good questions. If the entire area was covered with blown in sand dunes, maybe that? Maybe they're petrified. I don't know. It looks like a forest to me, and we won't know for sure until someone digs deeper than bugs might.


worotan t1_itkl8ed wrote

Petrified trees would be stone, not organic matter capable of storing moisture.


XonikzD t1_itknzm2 wrote

No kidding. It wouldn't matter for temperature differentials to trap moisture. Stones do it in sand too. People here have no interest in how desert plants seek moisture, all they care about is this notion that individual plants can communicate patterns, bs.


eatingganesha t1_itgtd54 wrote

I’m quite sure they’ve gone over sample areas with GPR and ruled out subterranean structures already.


caltheon t1_ithd5au wrote

I don't know about that. This article is saying for the first time they went and checked on them after a rain, which seems like kind of basic first step


XonikzD t1_itiy7ev wrote

I don't know that. Seems like a low priority exploration zone.