s,
I have only used a hammer/chisel to remove the contents of a couple of potholes just to see what is in there, and the contents, IMO, could not possibly just have fallen in and become so well packed and difficult to remove. And some of the contents are definitely still part of the bedrock, even though being completely different in colour and composition. The potholes I see now as Crystal Gardens, the contents having been formed within them from the bedrock material.
My intention with my present investigations is not really about the types of rock, but the shapes of the river and creek features, and the nature of the mechanical forces that would have been required to produce those shapes. And it doesn't add up at all in my mind, but I'm not having any luck getting a geologist to come and give his/her interpretation of how they formed. Maybe I shouldn't have sent them some of my images that show cobbles connected to/growing out of the bedrock?
The potholes are perhaps the most difficult to explain, and even the Creationists have problems with that, but then I haven't seen the Creationists include electrical and plasma storms in their research. The very evident ridges and fluting are seen around here, inclined, and looking like something has drilled into the rock.
Problem of Ridges, Flutings
A significant proof that the potholes are not in the process of formation at the present time, and that they are not worn by the abrasion of streams, is due to the presence on the walls of typical examples of little ridges, or flutings. These are often inclined at an angle to the horizontal.
From: On the Interpretation of Potholes, by Douglas E. Cox
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/pothart.html I put up a few more images on Picassa, some with my whacky interpretations:
https://plus.google.com/photos/11334575 ... 3052293025
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller