Just to bring this thread back to the fore.
In it, just above this post, is the latest update to the sequence of pictures I posted here, and earlier in this thread here, where it is obvious that once the dredging of the channel was pau the sand began to migrate from the right side of the picture (go back to the earlier sequence) across the opening and continued to fill in the bay.
In this sequence the sand is much higher than the ocean. There is no action of the ocean that can account for the deposit, nor is there any extreme tidal events that occurred repeatedly that would excuse such a belief. None.
These pictures are taken from a sequence captured every day during the entire time frame (I have the entire dataset and can show any day during the entire event), and in it the migration of the sand was something that happened daily, and was obvious as coming from the pile on the right and moving across the bay to the left. Whatever anyone says to excuse their beliefs is not backed up by any actual observations. No science. These pictures, and the dataset in its entirety, show what happened in detail explicitly.
And, again, there is no source of sand other than the sand already in place on the beach that can account for the filling of the bay. None. Please, be critical of the information, and ask yourself where, if the ocean carried in all that sand, so quickly, did it come from? And, if so, where is there evidence of that much sand elsewhere? And, how did the ocean pile it up so high? It is ridiculous to go on about it when there is no logic to support it. The sand is there, it moved, daily. We see it.. look how far away the ocean is and still the pile grows. And, again, the ocean had nothing to do with it. How could it?
In it, just above this post, is the latest update to the sequence of pictures I posted here, and earlier in this thread here, where it is obvious that once the dredging of the channel was pau the sand began to migrate from the right side of the picture (go back to the earlier sequence) across the opening and continued to fill in the bay.
In this sequence the sand is much higher than the ocean. There is no action of the ocean that can account for the deposit, nor is there any extreme tidal events that occurred repeatedly that would excuse such a belief. None.
These pictures are taken from a sequence captured every day during the entire time frame (I have the entire dataset and can show any day during the entire event), and in it the migration of the sand was something that happened daily, and was obvious as coming from the pile on the right and moving across the bay to the left. Whatever anyone says to excuse their beliefs is not backed up by any actual observations. No science. These pictures, and the dataset in its entirety, show what happened in detail explicitly.
And, again, there is no source of sand other than the sand already in place on the beach that can account for the filling of the bay. None. Please, be critical of the information, and ask yourself where, if the ocean carried in all that sand, so quickly, did it come from? And, if so, where is there evidence of that much sand elsewhere? And, how did the ocean pile it up so high? It is ridiculous to go on about it when there is no logic to support it. The sand is there, it moved, daily. We see it.. look how far away the ocean is and still the pile grows. And, again, the ocean had nothing to do with it. How could it?