After spending the past two years researching these "types" of catina, crater chains, we doubt that any breaking up rubble pile comet or other space rock caused them.

Crater chain research site (http://www.craterchains.com)

Comparing the behavior and pattern of SL9 from these NASA images to the crater
chains clearly demonstrates that tidal
disruption of mud and ice comets or asteroids were not the cause of these remarkable
catinas. SL9 broke up in varying sizes, thousands of kilometers apart and impacted
over many days. Crater chains of the type we are investigating and questioning are not
varied in size, are not thousands of kilometers apart and did not impact over days. The
very complexity of uniform size, trajectory, alignment, and timing isn't coming from a comet
that broke up.

But isn't your theory that these are the battle-scars of a forgotten interplanetary war?

But isn't your theory that these are the battle-scars of a forgotten interplanetary war?
No. It is our theory that these ARE caused by intelligence.

The "how", or "why" is anybodies guess work, with out further serious research.

Well first you need to explain "how" at least. I mean this being caused by meteor brake up seems far more reasonable then cause by a intelligence my unknown means or reasons.

HOW? Very good question. With our limited access to data the only other commonality we have discovered is the elevated radiation readings from these “types” of crater chains where the data has been available.

It would be wise instead of just reiterating the commonly accepted and totally erroneous assumption that a breaking up object could produce such cohesive structures upon impact to try at least to read the parameters of the given facts.

Or, in other words, the assumption that a tornado will build anything as it passes through a wrecking yard is the same as assuming that a breaking up object will produce such patterns.

It is regrettable that the Beagle isn’t even whimpering. Maybe the new RC cars being sent to Mars will find it and feed the poor puppy? :cool:

nature is intelligent enough
enough to create life :m:

Wouldn't these impacts be enough for cause of extinction? I couldn't see a scale of size, but it is thought that one large meteor stirred up enough dust on earth to cause a mass extinction (for the dinosaurs). And do they know if this moon has or once had a form of water? Europa (another moon of Jupiter) was thought to be made partly of ice. And Mars has erosion marks that are different from wind erosion and could only be caused by water. Does this moon show the same erosion marks? Or perhaps these "ETI" were silicon-based life forms and do not require the same elements for survival as we do.

I'm still new at this stuff and these are just some of my observations.. :)

craterchains (Norval please don't take offence to my statement I honestly mean no harm.

Now unfortunately in finding causality occums razor comes in which you must first definitively disprove all simpler theories before you can go to one as complex as intelligent intervention. There could be many geological possibilities other then crater impact, say a crack in the surface formed releasing a gas build up below that blew through the crack in repeating explosion on the length.

where is there evidence of radiation from these areas?

Avatar
Its what that life does with its self, and its surroundings, that I often wonder at.

Tallguy,
There are crater chains of hundreds of miles long and tens of miles wide. One example is about 600 miles by 40 miles wide crater chain. We are in the process of revamping our research site, which will then list all the photos we have accumulated to date. Try doing searches on crater chains and see what all comes up? The ETI we are imagining that made these were probably not indigenous to this solar system but were obviously very much like us in their use of weapons of mass destruction. Of course if this is true of crater chains, then that would cause many other craters to be suspect of origin. If these are weapons that made these crater chains, then mass extinction is a possibility.
Just a thought.

OCF
No offense at all, we are at these boards trying to make a case, and these replies are all critical to developing a good case of provability or we are wrong in our theory.
Now unfortunately in finding causality occums razor comes in which you must first definitively disprove all simpler theories before you can go to one as complex as intelligent intervention.
With the invocation of Occums Razor it reverts to the simplest explanation being the most probable. Trying to match up geological possibilities gets very complicated because of the many varied physical properties of their many locations where they appear. The probability of anything breaking up into identical sized masses, being tugged and pulled by gravity into the exact trajectories? Along with spacing and alignment, and then slamming into a surface at just the right moment to create such as these chains of craters we are investigation seems exceptionally complex to me. So, made by intelligence becomes the simplest explanation. Occums Razor back at yah.

With the invocation of Occums Razor it reverts to the simplest explanation being the most probable. Trying to match up geological possibilities gets very complicated because of the many varied physical properties of their many locations where they appear. The probability of anything breaking up into identical sized masses, being tugged and pulled by gravity into the exact trajectories? Along with spacing and alignment, and then slamming into a surface at just the right moment to create such as these chains of craters we are investigation seems exceptionally complex to me. So, made by intelligence becomes the simplest explanation. Occums Razor back at yah.

Aaaah but you failed to answer my theory which does not require a single meteor impact. Also you failed answer where you have evidence of radiation. And last but not lest you lied about being offended as calling me OCF is obviously a intended insult made out of spite. We are all genetal-men/women/its here we argue peacefully without resorting to such childishness.

What is simpler than to accept that it took intelligence to make these?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Or, that they fell out of the air in such order? See, no craters needed.

The radiation patterns I mentioned are available via NASA / JPL archives, like the well-known site APOD. (That’s astronomy picture of the day.) I think you should do the search yourself.

Sorry for the obvious typo, WCF. (But I have to admit it is funny as hell now that you point out my typo to me ,,, Over Cooked Fetus I assume you thought?) FOCLMFAO
:rolleyes:

Well a "o" is pretty far from a "w" thats a pretty rare typo, a "q" I could understand.

Still you fail to address my theory, also as you are presenting the evidence please give me at least a link to this radiation data.

intelligence demands intelligent evidence
so far I have seen only empty words without a shed of a back-up data except for some free-to-interpret pictures
Occums Razor is still at work, geological phenomena is more probable than aliens using nuclear weapons

I really don't think that aliens would fly a zillion miles just to blow-up some of their nuclear arsenal.

p.s. if I hear that word "WMD"one more time, I will throw up. the USA has totally diseased the word.

p.p.s. still waiting for that radiation data. it would be much appreciated

What is simpler than to accept that it took intelligence to make these? :eek: :D

Original thought is so rare these days.

WCF; if you have a problem with gas?
Stay away from friends.

You want a URL for that radiation stuff? Go fish.

This thread belongs in Pseudoscience

From the so-called “research” link:

As most scientists are so specialized in their particular fields, they often aren't capable of recognizing things outside of that field. Because of that we started asking specialists from many fields of science and experience. Just people we know from everyday life, and they in turn asked of ones they thought might have some ideas about these types of catinas.
Most conclude as do we that these are not natural in formation and agree that they
are probably caused by intelligence.

Yes, let’s ignore the opinions of scientists and simply ask the man-on-the-street what he thinks and use those opinions to form our conclusions.

There are hundreds of this "type" of catina that are far too uniform to be natural. What other explanation is needed than to simply admit it was caused by intelligence. Often the simplest explanation is the right one.

Actually, the conclusion of ‘intelligence’ would be considered the most complex. Here is the simple explanation:

The comet's original single nucleus was torn to pieces by Jupiter's strong gravity during a close encounter with the solar system's largest planet in 1992. The pieces are seen in this composite of Hubble Space Telescope images to be "pearls" strung out along the comet's orbital path.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950713.html


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/stringofpearls.gif

case closed

Originally posted by craterchains (Norval
Original thought is so rare these days.

WCF; if you have a problem with gas?
Stay away from friends.

You want a URL for that radiation stuff? Go fish.

Well then craterchains (Norval I have no reason to believe your theory as you cannot present valid evidence on it nor can your refute other counter theories.

Hey guys, "whatever" FOCLMFAO

SL9 string of pearls in that image above shows difference sized pieces, different spacing and not entirely a straight line. This image shows some of the impacts, now is that a crater chain? NO

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9//gif/calar19.gif

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo//callisto/02281997_full.jpg

[/B]I really do not see the comparison.

This is not rocket science, it does not take a university degree to understand.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9//gif/calar20.gif http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/stringofpearls.gif

You know many of the impact craters don't looks the same size or distance to me, I really don't see the intelligent intervention there.

You really don't understand it, WellCookedFetus?....you really don't see how simplistic it is?

Wait, so since this one comet didn't break up in a way to create these marks, no comets/asteroids can?

Yes its looks very simple to me, naturally simple in fact. The example you posted below, look at the craters they are obviously of different size and distance if a meteor broke up just seconds before impact it would easily create that pattern.

Well, there are hundreds of this type of crater chain we feel couldn’t be natural, but then you do have to look at the other pictures. It does require effort to question and click. Little effort is required to summarily agree with Bottky’s theory. But then how many are really interested in doing things for themselves? We offer the only other theory of cause for the CS type of crater chain. After having ruled out such mundane things as possible gas eruptions aligning themselves along some fault line because of the obvious physical properties of where we find the CS type of crater chains.

Very Intresting site!

Also , the photo of miranda was amazing , the amount of anomolys on there!

Keep up the good work

I spent a little time looking at crater chain photos from NASA before responding to this thread. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe they are not natural impact craters. Rather cool, that, but I certainly don't need to think up some aliens to see how they got there.

The evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of asteroid/comet break up and crash, it boggles my mind that people have to resort to UFOs. Unless you are just joking? This is just a good natured moment of silliness, right? :confused:

You can go ahead, think this is a joke or just good natured silliness and keep accepting all the conclusions derived from financial-result-orientated institutions or individuals. Instead of the word silliness, I like the word accountability.
I do not think UFO has been mention until now, personally my opinion is the U does not apply any more, but then again, UFO's have nothing to do with CS crater chain research.
Yes, Miranda is an anomoly, unique in fact.

I have yet to hear a theory on why aliens would makes these craters?

Based on all known data of what can make a crater, and you ask how?
Based on all the known data of why those craters were made, you ask why?
By basing any theoretical possibilities on what we do know of ALL types of crater formations, and how they are formed is a good start. From there you should eliminate the obvious ones that because of physics properties couldn’t have caused what you are looking at. That’s a start at least to discovering the highest probability of the what and why. What do you think?

So far the arguments presented have turned up no NEW ideas, plausible theories, or information we don’t already have, or have at least considered. If any had actually looked at all the pictures we have on the research site, had actually gone to the links we list and READ what the scientists are saying you would find that you are not arguing our ideas, but theirs. We quote the scientists own observations from their web pages, and it is their points and observations we are using against them.

Had you actually read their observations you would have noted;
1. The crater chains do not have ejecta material falling back into them from the next, thus indicating that the craters in the chain formed nearly simultaneously.
2. The crater chains appear to be the newest feature in the photographs making them some of the youngest or newest formations in our solar system.
3. The scientists offered no explanation prior to the 1994 SL9 comet break-up. They have had photos of crater chains since 1967.
4. Besides a couple of narrowly distributed journals these pictures never were brought to the publics attention till after comet SL9 impacted Jupiter.
5. The only offered THEORY is the “rubble pile” TDC (tidally disrupted comet). Which is based on the “chance” it will produce a crater chain of the C/S type.

We offer the analogy that using dice we can demonstrate crater chains of the type we are investigating (C/S) are not going to happen by chance hundreds of times in our solar system. Imagine that each side of the cube represents one aspect of the known properties of crater chains. Toss 50 die out and the resultant pattern necessary to equate this to a chance happening of a crater chain would be as follows. All the same numbers up, to the left, to the right, and having all landed in a close line almost touching each other.

Imagine walking a gravel path and seeing several stones aligned along the path, OOOO, it would be reasonable to at least THINK, “someone did that intentionally”. We rest our case for crater chains having been caused by ETI, and NOT by chance.

Ya but why? :p

We rest our case for crater chains having been caused by ETI, and NOT by chance.


Your honor, we move that the case be dismissed on the grounds the defendant is not mentally fit to stand trial.

I second that motion, he lacks any proof that aliens did cause it, there is no black monolith, no neon sign that says "ignignog was here" just some craters that line up most likely by a geological mechanism that may or may not yet be understood.

Unfortunately, we find that we are the only ones that have really offered any other possible theory or explanation for what caused these CS crater chains. I am a war vet and YOU show these photos to war vets and bomb damage assent people and see what kind of response you get. When you get those professional opinions stop and think that earth doesn’t seem to be touched, and if there were any losers or escapees from this theoretical war, where would they go? Are we harboring the losers down here? OK, who’s throwing the intergalactic keger? What ultimatum?

Why do you feel the need to spam your theory over the board. Atleast keep it in one place and acknowledge the comments raise.

You don't even have a THEORY. You have an IDEA. An unsupported one at that.

In all honesty, we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years. In further honesty, only two possible explanations, caused by intent, or happened by chance. We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing. The computer model must give the same. Try and read all that we say first, then develop your arguments. We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces that by chance align like what we see impacting simultaneously. Really think about that!

I been looking through the photos you have on your site and I really really do not see why these can’t be explained as natural meteor impacts! Come on these thing have different distances and varying sizes for the craters. Some of them like Phobos and Miranda don't even resemble anything unnatural!

Hey, Persol, all I have is the bullet holes, if I were you I would be concerned whom or what was holding the gun. Actually the THEORY was published to NASA in November of 2002, at their request. Some of the history of our research information is not available right now as we are rebuilding the site, sorry.

What can I say in reply WCF, that you want to disagree with the scientists that have made many comments as to their abnormally close alignment, or that they marvel at how they were able to all strike nearly simultaneously? Be my guest, but I for one marvel and question this also. A machine gun has variations in its patterns also. Recognizable by those with experience in such maters, this represents one very big machine gun.

In all honesty, we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years.
Except for the explanation of science?

We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing.
You don't understand physics either do you?
I have 1 piece. It breaks into saw 12 pieces. They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line. This is observable in the bomb photos that I showed. The weight distribution (the 'widening and shrinking' of you chains) was clearly shown in the Columbia breakup. All it takes is the right combination of speed and drag. Now please point out where this is flawed.

We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces
Well, they aren't 'evenly sized' so there goes that idea. This is clearly seen by the different sized craters.

that by chance align
They stay aligned because of physics, not chance.

like what we see impacting simultaneously
You have no actual evidence of this. They do overlap slightly as is, and there is no reason to think that they impacted at the same time.

So, where is my explanation (which is much simpler and supported by science) flawed?

What can I say in reply WCF, that you want to disagree with the scientists that have made many comments as to their abnormally close alignment, or that they marvel at how they were able to all strike nearly simultaneously? Be my guest,

Not at all I would love to see that evidence.

Hell, since it seems you have no interest on investigating how the physics of a breakup could produce landing like these, I created a simple example.

what the heck, guess I'll post this here too.

Actually the THEORY was published to NASA in November of 2002, at their request. And again as a mater of public record, per their suggestion applied for funding if I remember in March of 2003. We were contacted on Dec 27th via email to apply for a grant that had a closing of submission of intent on Jan 14th. Great lead time, NOT!
A scan through NASA's submissions for research requests should net you something on it. You may have to formally join though, but I am not sure on that.

No, we didn’t get the funding and didn’t really expect to, but we did get some recognition and acknowledgement that we were the first with that idea. So in essence it is published theory requested by NASA for evaluation.

Appeal to authority fallacy

Despite the credibility of those that look at it does not mean it’s correct.

Hey, lets all hope we are wrong because; the repercussions of ETI discovery is one thing, and the potential of discovering of ETI with weapons of this nature having been used in our solar system is a rational possibility of actual ETI contact. You are correct WCF, just because we have been taken seriously doesn’t mean we are correct. And, we wish we were wrong. Yet after two years of research into crater chains and just starting to scratch the surface of the Mars anomalies noted by astronomers in the last month we are discovering more possible evidence than we ever imagined. It takes a whole lot of time to research the radio bands, so too with re-searching available pictures of our solar system. I think we all seek answers, it’s the answers that are sometimes hard to accept that will get you. Time to get back to research and re-searching.

Norval

Hmm... and has yet to explain why my very simple explanation is wrong.

And that is Persol?

I have a meteor/comet. It breaks into saw 12 pieces. They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line. This is observable in the bomb photos that I showed, and the excel screenshot I posted. The weight distribution (the 'widening and shrinking' of you chains) was clearly shown in the Columbia breakup. All it takes is the right combination of speed and drag. Now please point out where this is flawed.

I watched the Columbia breakup on cnn, I watched the search for debre, I looked at the pictures that were released on the news, the net etc., I looked at the still pictures taken from the videos and the radar tracking. Not one piece of the Columbia debre made a crater, some were hot, started fires, other just laying on the ground, another penetrated the surface (embedded) but no craters. The debre was spread out over several States.
Nothing about the Columbia incident resembles this:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA01610_modest.jpg
Doesn't drag require atmosphere?

Persol
Your drag hypothesis requires atmosphere where there is none. SL9 did elongate over time, and also widened its separation on that axis. Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
It requires a four-dimensional plan, not a two as yours only shows. The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact. You are thinking, and that is what it takes, lots of thought. Keep in mind the basic premise that in space once an object is in motion it will stay in motion until some factor like atmosphere, or a gravitational field is encountered. The tapering of ends are only on a few of the chains, not all. The largest chains, say 40 – 60 km wide craters show no sign of this tapering.

WCF
The comments about these chains by scientists are words on the pages and must be read besides just looking at the photos. My eyes are tired, and my brain mushed, by all the articles I have read. Many of those comments show changes of attitudes over the decades as these types of chains were found and photographed. I would really like to see some of the photos of crater chains that are listed but we have never seen pictures of!?
There is much more yet to be learned and debated, I agree. I do hope I am responding to the real questions being presented here, of course the ones that are of obviously not I ignore.

No drag does not require a atmosphere! The drag is gravity on a vector. When a comet or asteroid brakes up, gravity gradient pulls it apart into a line formation.

I think I did address that in my above post, WCF.

I don't see why the ends need to be taperd?

Need? Not sure what yu mean by a "need to be tapered".

It is possible that the angle of those photos only make the ends appear that way?

I watched the Columbia breakup on cnn, I watched the search for debre, I looked at the pictures that were released on the news, the net etc., I looked at the still pictures taken from the videos and the radar tracking. Not one piece of the Columbia debre made a crater....Good. You watched it. Then you would have seen the shape of the debri as it was breaking up in the sky. It is the same shape as these crater chains. The lack of a crate is due only to material and size. There are many pieces of a meteor that do not 'land' as well.

Doesn't drag require atmosphere?No.

Your drag hypothesis requires atmosphere where there is none.
Well no... it doesn't.

Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size.

The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
Funny. Basic physics would tell you that X and Y is needed, Z is not.

The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact.
Funny yet again. It just so happens that time IS included. Otherwise the objects would not seperate.


So, you have yet to show where this is flawed.

Glad you had a funny, now go back to school. You Wrote "They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line." WCF corrected you also. We both pointed out the grav. factor. It also stands to reason many scientists would use excel if it worked on this type of complex problem. You really should read up on space physics motion properties, or go ask your teacher.

You wrote, "Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size."

Maybe you should change educators?

You really should read up on space physics motion properties

It is reasonable for anyone to conclude, if you’ve been following the threads here, that Persol is light years ahead of you when it comes to physics, and that your so-called ‘research’ is pedestrian at best and does not even qualify as a high school science project.

Give it up and try to salvage some dignity, if at the very least, a shred.

If Persol's idea worked, Dr. Bottke would have used it also,,, Q? you might also think of changing schools.

Let's see... so far craterchains has demonstrated the following: casual approach to evidence, irrefutable hypothesis, spurious similarities, appeals to authority, seeking mysteries, explanation by scenario, refusal to revise, and the "Galileo effect" (they scorned him, too).

His quickness to cite the interest of science in him, but his disdain for science.....

If it looks like it... smells like it.... it must be.... pseudoscience!

Ya but the moderators have been jerking off lately (that and we can’t report threads or post anymore) so we have to deal with this crap.

factor. It also stands to reason many scientists would use excel if it worked on this type of complex problem.

No physicist would ever use Excel for this type of problem. Mathematica or Matlab perhaps, never a spreadsheet. Almost certainly a pen and paper and proper text books.

You really should read up on space physics motion properties, or go ask your teacher.

You don't seem to know about the word 'mechanics' in this context. That says a lot about your lack of knowledge of space physics motions aka mechanics.

Maybe you should change educators?

Maybe you should get an education.

craterchains: Motion in two axes is sufficient to explain the break up, since most meteorites that make a crater are moving very quickly toward the planet before they hit it. The minor velocity changes for the meteorite pieces along the axis of travel don't really mean much compared to its previous high velocity... as a result, unless some pieces of the meteorite actually move behind other pieces, two axes are sufficient to describe their motion. The Z-axis (which you can define as the axis parallel to the vector of travel) can pretty much be normalized out of the equations, no?

No physicist would ever use Excel for this type of problem. Mathematica or Matlab perhaps, never a spreadsheet. Almost certainly a pen and paper and proper text books.I think anything besides excel is overkill here. The only issue is to show that this is possible. This can e shown using VERY simple math. I'm not wasting time putting equations into matlab and plotting just so crater can ignore it.

Granted, if you was actually researching this you would use more complex equations (hence a need for matlab) to find out what the probability of such an impact is. To prove that it is possible however, only excel is needed.
You Wrote "They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line." WCF corrected you alsoWould you like to point out exactly where he corrected me. I claimed it was the result of drag. You said drag requires an atmosphere. He said that gravity serves perfectly well.

You run all the formulas you want, what we want is critical assessments by weapons experts. As has been stated, we have only just begun to investigate Mars. We have been investigating CS types of crater chains for about two years and have noted all scientists’ remarks as to their uniqueness. What we have discovered are crater chains on Mars where scientists have said there were none. Look that up. What we see is one thing, it is what we don’t see that is also very important. We don’t see any disruption to these catinas from later strikes. That indicates that they are the newest formations on those surfaces. It is also that they are the newest formations all over the solar system because of no infringements. Note also that Phobos is heavily crater chained. There are no older chains partially obscured by other craters. As I stated there is more evidence, if you but look and think and stop flapping your fingers at your keyboards.

We don’t have to defend another theory, and Bottke’s et all can try to defend their own as we are doing here. Everyone has their own idea on how these CS types of crater chains may have formed, only one will prove true in the end. We have already been recognized as having a valid point concerning the probability of being caused by intelligence by several scientists and they are investigating it further. They also agree that the possibility of these having been formed by a comet or meteor breaking up and impacting the surface is infinitesimally small. Where as you have had a couple of weeks to think about this, if at all, we have been studying these for a couple years and NASA for about 14 months. Catch up, but that is what all students, learners, and runners do, till one day you find yourself by the wayside, back in the pack, or out in front.

Earth is the only planet photographed where we have yet to find pictures of CS types of crater chains. Food for thought.

YOu jsut love to repeat post don't you? where on the chain craters on venus?

And you want these 'weapons experts' to tell you what? That nobody would waste that kind of 'ammo' on a straight line.That we don't have weapons that can do this. That a 'weapons expert' has nothing relevant to tell you about comet/meteor craters.

we have been studying these for a couple years
Fine, then show us some actual evidence of your claims... not some silly comparison to rolling of dice.

Why is it that kooks always resort to 'we have been doing this for years, but can't explain it'

Why is it that kooks always resort to 'we have been doing this for years, but can't explain it'

Probably a variation on Casti's Anachronistic Thinking characteristic of a pseudoscientist.

Another common thread, particularly among the "extraterrestrial intelligence" nutters, is the impending doom angle. It always comes back to the trepidations of man brought on by the whatever is considered the malignant threat of the day. I'm not surprised to see the doomsayers bringing up the topic of "global war" and "nuclear threat."

These are, afterall, contemporary topics of our culture at the moment with the so-called "Global War on Terror" and the nuclear proliferation in N. Korea.

Before he finally goes, I would expect craterchains to leave us with a warning to change our ways lest we end up like Mars and offer us a brief sermon, urging the acceptance of some soul-redeeming diety.

Skinwalker
There are many ways to debate and discus, yours is not the way and reflects poorly on your social and debating skills.
Have you found the indigenous home of the Venus flytrap yet? When you do, you will know why we know its home area and why it became a part of our research archives.. Post a picture of that area. Want another hint?
The Carolina Bays are in the CS type crater chain data archive for obvious reasons.

WCF
Try searching things out for yourself, or are you used to the silver platter? The pictures are there along with the scientist’s comments. There are two threads, one has to do with CRATER CHAINS of the CS type, which is HERE, and the other thread has to do with the “potential” of war on Mars and our solar system.

Persol
What is YOUR idea of proof that these crater chains are or are not what we propose?
PS, You obviously have no weapons, combat, or tactical experience. I would recommend some research along those lines before you respond.

PS, You obviously have no weapons, combat, or tactical experience. I would recommend some research along those lines before you respond.Well, sorry... but wrong again. Now, you have yet to explain the 'tactical advantage' of laying down a line of nukes in a straight line. You obviously have no weapons, combat, or tactical experience. I would recommend some research along those lines before you respond.

Persol, I do know Norval is Vietnam Veteran with automatic weapons and explosives experience.

What would a fire wall of nuclear weapons going off be like and what advantage would that have?

That neither makes him an expert, nor proficiently knowlegeable. As evidenced by his insistance that a "chain" of atomic explosives has tactical or strategic value.

Skinwalker
I ask you WHY are you interested in my strategy thoughts concerning potential ETI weapons and their possible applications? Address the issue of CS crater chain properties or open a thread concerning the other. And about your Venus Flytrap, any progress?

Skinwalker
I ask you WHY are you interested in my strategy thoughts concerning potential ETI weapons...This looks like a very dense comment. Your claim is that they are not natural, but the result of a war. That these chains would provide little benefit in a war is clear.

Everyone has their own idea on how these CS types of crater chains may have formed, only one will prove true in the end.

Yes, but clearly you’ve let your imagination run wild by asserting alien weapons and considering the likeliness for natural cause as infinitesimally small. Any scientist worth his salt would never make such a proposal.

But then, you’re not a scientist.

Persol, I believe the dropping of a bomb or two on Japan made its point in war, so nuclear weapons in war has already established itself as a means to an end, a weapon of mass destruction.

Yes, we dropped a bomb on japan. We DIDN'T continue to drop a straight line of bombs across the countryside and into the ocean. I am refereing to the chains of explosion having no benefit... which would have been clear to anybody who actually read my post.

craterchains (Norval,

Your the on presenting your idea, you have to present evidence not I, I only need to contradict you, you said "Earth is the only planet found without crater chains” I say "oh ya, prove it!"

WCF I moved your question to its proper thread.

Earth, being the most photographed planet in our solar system is with out CS (Cunningham / Smart) type of crater chain as after two years of searching by us and a couple decades by scientists we would have a photograph of one. NOT. Also it is noted that you can't find a photo of a CS type of chain on Earth either. :D

WCF I moved your question to its proper thread.

This entire thread should be moved to the proper forum. The sheer lack of scientific method involved in this last post of craterchains should be reason enough.

This is pseudoscience or alternative science. Not "Astronomy, exobiology, or cosmology."

WCF I moved your question to its proper thread.

Earth, being the most photographed planet in our solar system is with out CS (Cunningham / Smart) type of crater chain as after two years of searching by us and a couple decades by scientists we would have a photograph of one. NOT. Also it is noted that you can't find a photo of a CS type of chain on Earth either. :D

I don't think so as I just saw on one of these threads of yours someone post a crater chain of three craters, thats not much but its a start.

WCF, Please read the post besides just looking at the pictures. Our criteria for CS types of crater chains are more stringent than Bottke’s. The Carolina Bays do NOT qualify as a CS chain. Or, you are referring to the close up of a crater chain on Calisto?

Skin
Another astute and irrelevant comment that adds nothing.

Hye its your red harring not mine. :rolleyes:

Earth, being the most photographed planet in our solar system is with out CS (Cunningham / Smart) type of crater chain as after two years of searching by us and a couple decades by scientists we would have a photograph of one. NOT. Also it is noted that you can't find a photo of a CS type of chain on Earth either. :D

We do see crater chains. They might not exactly match the CS criteria, but that would be absurd, as the Earth and Mars differ significantly.

There's a crater chain in Chad (Aorounga) and another stretching across Kansas and Missouri. Anoter spanning continents, with craters in The Ukraine, France, and Canada.

You won't see the same structures for various reasons. Atmosphere, some objects burn up before hitting. Thin Martian atmosphere doesn't do this, everything that hits leaves a mark. The fact that 2/3 of the Earth is water, so there would be no craters in that. Erosion, plate tectonics, ice ages and continental drift all changing the face of the Earth, not applicable on Mars.

There are about 150 observed craters on the Earth. For us to see crater chains, we'd have to be bombarded by many more weak meteorites, and thankfully, that doesn't happen.

Phlogistician you are entirely correct in that we do not want to see a bombardment of any type on earth.

How far apart is the Ukraine, France, and Canada? The crater chains being investigated on earth are not true crater chains even by the definition W. Bottke uses himself in his research these crater sites are not shoulder to shoulder and do not fit his own crater chain definition.

I haven't seen Wet1 for some time - I wonder where he is?

Most likely, if he was still here, he would have moved this thread to Pseudoscience long ago.

Hello Wet1, anyone there?

I say we just never come back to this thread again. They'll get bored enough.

The crater chains being investigated on earth are not true crater chains even by the definition W. Bottke uses himself in his research these crater sites are not shoulder to shoulder and do not fit his own crater chain definition.

I don't care what his definition is, I'd rather look at the evidence. We do see lines of craters on Earth formed by a broken up incoming object. The fact that they are spread out over a large area sometimes is immaterial. We would expect differences between crater chains on Mars and Earth as I have explained. We see differences. But the cause is the same, comets or meteorites broken up by tidal forces. The fact that one guy draws a line in the sand, and chooses to exclude some evidence is bad science.

Phlogistician
You may say,
“The fact that they are spread out over a large area sometimes is immaterial.”

It is very material in that we agree with Bottke and all that say that a comet does break up at times and will land somewhere some time. The difference is that we are examining a series of inline craters that have the resemblance of machine like precision. Haven’t you ever taken a pattern recognition test? You know, pick the picture that most resembles the example given? A Bottke splatter chain may have fallen across the usa, but it is highly contended by many scientists as to being from the same comet, nor did they impact at the same time. It is far from anything we are investigating as Cunningham / Smart chains of machine like precision. CS chains are selected by a much more rigid parameter of formation qualifications. We exclude no scientific data.

WCF
THIS is where we discuss CS chains versus Bottke chains.
MOVED TO PROPER THREAD

"could you get a picture?
all I could find was this:
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke.../venus_abs.html
I did not know it takes 2 to make a chain?"

I would think not, and keep searching. The pictures are out there.
My search of the net last night found me one on Venus we didn't have before.

Phlogistician
The difference is that we are examining a series of inline craters that have the resemblance of machine like precision.

Despite the images you have posted, I have not seen that in them. I have seen enough variability in the size and spacing of the craters to accept the cometary/meteorite breakup explanation. We can see similar structures on earth, we accept cometary break up for those, so this case is solved as far as I'm concerned.

Have I taken a pattern recognition test. Yes, many different types of psychometric test, and an ex-gf was getting her degree in Psychology, I was often roped in, and took part in her experiments. A lot of them have a lot to say about out preconceptions affecting our perception. We look for familiar things in jumbles of data, we see faces on clouds, and canals on Mars. Our perception of these things is faulty.

Phlog
I find it interesting that so many seem to not see what the scientists are seeing, that I do find most interesting indeed. Or, you failed to read the other poster’s arguments to this CS chain theory that couldn’t see the uniqueness of them either and our responses. Be what it may, you state “We can see similar structures on earth, we accept cometary break up for those, so this case is solved as far as I'm concerned.” As this is about CS chains and NOT Bottke chains being on earth which are far different I would ask where you have found a CS chain on earth? Got a picture? You may want to remember our requirement of CS crater chain qualification is far more constrictive than Bottke’s.

You do bring up a good point about pattern recognition though, and preconceptions. As you stated “A lot of them have a lot to say about out preconceptions affecting our perception. We look for familiar things in jumbles of data, we see faces on clouds, and canals on Mars. Our perception of these things is faulty.”

If you had taken the time on the web to actually read up on the scientist’s comments, and our comments you would have noted we were guilty of that also. We actually thought that someone may have guided space rocks of enormous size to impact like this, but then as that didn’t seem probable we thought some more. Facts were over shadowed by our “common knowledge acceptance” that all craters are formed by impacts of meteors or what ever as we all have learned. When the mathematical probability of this kind of impact structure is done it becomes clear that some other answer is needed. Thus we developed our Cunningham / Smart crater chain theory based on what we know could produce such impacts of nonrandom linearity and sizing.

WCF, any luck on finding Venus crater chains pictures?

Not at all, so I believe your wrong in that earth is not the only planet without CS craters :D

Venus doesn't have many craters at all. Maybe meteorites have a hard time getting through that atmosphere all the way down to the ground.

BigBlueHead,

Well that is not true:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/vencrate.htm#intro

the atmosphere there only seems able to stop the small ones.

Ah... well, that makes sense. I'd understood that Venus resurfaced itself pretty regularly, because of the heat or something like that. Although I guess that didn't work for Mercury.

Good research WCF, and this one PLEASE no one tell Fluid about ok? FOCL
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/venus/cluster.htm
Looks kind of like a scull,,, chuckles.

Try this page for two crater chains in the same image of smaller size craters on Venus. We are not stating they are CS types for obvious reasons by our criteria they fail and could be caused by natural means on that strange planet.
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/captions/venus/danu.htm

OK, did we miss anything here? We have CS chains on all the planetary bodies we have so far photographed with enough resolution to see them. Even found them on Mars where scientists seem to have mistakenly said there were none. Everywhere except Earth.

Hey, maybe it was earthlings who nuked the rest of the solar system!

I still don't see any crater chains on Venus.

OK, did we miss anything here? We have CS chains on all the planetary bodies we have so far photographed with enough resolution to see them. Even found them on Mars where scientists seem to have mistakenly said there were none. Everywhere except Earth.Um... yeah... a planet with high errosion factors. You won't find much of ANY crater here.

Scientists see crater chains on Venus.
We see crater chains on Venus.
This URL showes two crater chains in one picture on Venus.
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/captions/venus/danu.htm
Whats wrong with your eyes? A bit of denial maybe?

No that perfect, thanks :)

Earth craters of note are Barringer Crater, and Wolf Creek Crater. but they arn't CS crater chains. Just big craters.

The point is that the hypothesis of CS crater chains being natural is not in any way harmed by earth not having them. What you can CS crater chains are considered to be a natural percentage of the total number of craters. It just so happens that this percentage is small enough that earth doesn't have any left.

You'll also note that the chains you showed on venus have none of the features which you claim make these chains special.

To reiterate for Persol's benefit:

Try this page for two crater chains in the same image of smaller size craters on Venus. We are not stating they are CS types for obvious reasons by our criteria they fail and could be caused by natural means on that strange planet.http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/captions/venus/danu.htm

I cannot understand your first paragraph, either it is missing words or just not typed to make full sense.

You may find this map kind of interesting. Pan and zoom around a bit. How many CS chains can you count?

http://themis.asu.edu/mars-bin/mars_cgi_map.pl?TOP_LAT=29.147680923&LEFT_LON=257.10569201&CENT_LAT=23.522680923&CENT_LON=268.35569201&DISP_RES=32&DISP_DATASET=Visible&DISP_MAP_DATASET=1&DISP_MAP_PROJ=0&TNAIL_LINK=20040122a&PAN_SELECT_ZOOM=ZOOM&MAP_IMG.x=355&MAP_IMG.y=174

Oh my god, I may have made a mistake. It looks like Mars and not Phobos has the greater amount of CS chains.

Just wanted to say good bye to all the ones I have met here at sciforums. Judging from the responses we have stimulated here at these boards and threads we are certain of one thing. Not everyone here is human. There are those that will, at any cost, try to keep ones from learning about them. Why they are here and what their agenda was and is. Reverse engineering has given us these technologies of computers and much more. It would be shear stupidity to think that “they” wouldn’t be out here on the web. The demons of our religions are the same ET’s that are mutilating our animals and abducting many humans. They have been kicked out of the heavens and if they try to leave they get their ships blown out of the heavens by the victors that are still out there. The deception is over.

Good bye, and thanks for all the fish.
Norval

Cya Norval... don't let the aliens bite

I'm an alien? Gosh I didn't know. And all I thought I was doing was providing a little common sense to the world. But Norval comes along, and like a Heaven's Gate member, shows just how much of a nut he can be. We good riddens. There's enough nuts in the world as it is. Guess I'll go back to repairing my spacecraft!

What's that song, "Crater - chain of Fools"?

I'm an alien? Gosh I didn't know. And all I thought I was doing was providing a little common sense to the world. But Norval comes along, and like a Heaven's Gate member, shows just how much of a nut he can be. We good riddens. There's enough nuts in the world as it is. Guess I'll go back to repairing my spacecraft!

haha, that guy is a freakin loon

This is the second science forum he has failed to defend his "research" on. So his petty excuses begin.

This is the second science forum he has failed to defend his "research" on. So his petty excuses begin
And I find it truly pathetic that his final defence is to point his finger at the forum and cry "aliens are among us!" If that is the best argument he can find to support his crap, I mean claims, then his time is probably better spent at home wallpapering his room with tinfoil.

Is anyone following the research by SMSU on the Crater Chain through Missouri? Preliminary research supports another structure as an impact crater.

Could you elaborate?

How far apart is the Ukraine, France, and Canada? The crater chains being investigated on earth are not true crater chains even by the definition W. Bottke uses himself in his research these crater sites are not shoulder to shoulder and do not fit his own crater chain definition.

Persol
The research by SMSU on the Crater Chain through Missouri is the same research as I referred to previously.

By the way, it seems Cornell University has taken all of Dr. Bottke's research web pages down, does that mean maybe Cornell University disagrees with Bottke or that there is another explaination for crater chains?
:D

Dear craterchains (Norval,

This is amazing; you and FieryIce have hit on a very real thing. You are fine examples of revolutionary logic. Crater chains are not natural and are made by explosives. These chains are made during sexual celebrations by the nakkakkakkarrap people, according to their celebrations they must explode bombs in a line on uninhabited natural bodies of mass. Only as the flaming blast is rising can they have sex. The nakkakkakkarrap follow a bizarre algorithm that proclaims how many of these sex bomb chains can be detonated on a said planet in a set time period. They are not scheduled to come back to our system again until they detonate one on mercury in the year 71,896,038AD

Earth craters of note are Barringer Crater, and Wolf Creek Crater. but they arn't CS crater chains. Just big craters.

Those were the same craters that Eugene Shoemaker was interested in.

These chains are made during sexual celebrations
Exploding_Necquim, would you like to advise as to where you would like your nuke shoved so you can enjoy it the most?

good riddens = good riddance

i have just shed any reliability in Exploding_Necquim's statements

too bad, he had a good one going.

i too, believe that ETI can, and would probably, have some peoples dedicated to watching information flow on the internet.

this means good AND bad... not just BAD IC agents trying to confuse/mix the discussions up.

plus- i am not sure whether the ETs are actually themselves accessing the internet (because of certain situations/rules/laws) or if they channel thru humans, or even less mystical, they suggest to humans who have pledged their alliance to the aliens of particular orientation what to say.

Norval, thanks for the efforts, I, for one, appreciate them.
perhaps we can still converse and help bring these evidences to other places.

I'm sorry to hear you don't believe me. ETI don't come here often during this time, the last time ETI access the internet is during the great internet porn explosion of the earthly 90's. Just local nymphomaniacs, sadly the damage they did to the internet would never be reversed. About craterchains though: I saw a detonation once it was quite a sight, they would build all these love huts around it and during the blast the huts would explode from a blast not of hot gas but of spawning fluid. In the heated plasmafid gas the babies would fly out of their little eggs and feed on hot gas. They blow the bombs up in rows so that the babies can jump from one cloud of hot gas to another as quickly as possible and to gain speed so they can fly off into space in a neat line towards a target far of at a distant star.

Since Bottke et. al. computer model for asteroids does not explain these CS crater chains and Bottke's model at Cornell University has been taken off the net a new computer model has been developed at the Russian Academy of Sciences. The developer admits this new computer model also has a flaw and still cannot explain "those that could cause widespread regional or even global damage".

Small Stony Asteroids Will Explode and Not Hit Earth, Study Shows (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/asteroid_breakup_030716.html)
:D

FieryIce,

I don't see anything in there about crater chains.

That's right WCF and you won't because no matter what these researchers do with their computer programs they cannot duplicate CS chains using asteroid as the base cause. It won't work because an asteroid did not make CS crater chains, period.
:D

and you haven't yet proved that. Thankful this is in psuedoscience because of your lack of evidence. :D

Haven't you heard of the Incompetency Syndrome?

Incompetency Syndrome = you are incapable of seeing.
The evidence bites you on the butt, WCF. The evidence is all there, just look.
:D

yes it is you that is incapable of seeing, where is the evidence of aliens? there is none, just a line of craters that could have been formed naturally, where is your proof they can't be formed naturally, you have none, yet you can’t see the natural theory as more plausible thus you’re the blind one.

Well, it’s official. You two (craterchains and fieryice) are cranks. I first encountered your crater chains web-site in the first week of March. I carefully reviewed all the links to confirm that it was not a prank web-site. You both appeared to be sincere in your proclamations of doom and gloom. I submitted your site to crank dot net in late March and on April 6 you made the list. I’d like to think that I can take credit for your inclusion on that list but there’s a real possibility that others had beaten me to the punch and submitted your site as well simply because you two are just so wrong about everything you’ve proposed.

http://www.crank.net/new.html



First, you have essentially ignored the recognized methodologies of science while (incredibly) claiming to embrace them.

Second, you have wantonly raped logic and reason in your efforts to persuade others to your point of view.

Lastly, you have demonstrated cult characteristics when you discovered that virtually no one agrees with you. (dis-info agents, aliens among us and everyone else ignorant dupes)

Let’s begin with your basal (and rather outrageous) claim. From your web site:

“Somebody had to align these meteors to land like that!”

A nit-pick. If the meteoroid does not plow through an atmosphere, then it does not qualify as a ‘meteor’. And no, no one arranged those impacts.

Your attempt to extend -one- example (sl-9) to represent all possible tidally disrupted objects is inappropriate and inaccurate. Let’s begin with what we know to be true. A little over half a century ago, sl-9 began orbiting Jupiter instead of orbiting the Sun.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/comets/images/sl9_trajectory_jpg_image.html&edu=high

Neato. Like a really big etch-a-sketch. But this is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional occurrence. What you can’t see is that sl-9’s orbit dips well below the plane of the ecliptic. Let’s take a closer look at the final orbit:

http://ase.tufts.edu/astroweb/view_pic.asp?id=765

What’s really important here is that sl-9 did not simply pass within Jupiter’s Roche limit; it closed to less than half the Roche limit. Und yah, that’s germane. Within the Roche limit tidal forces overwhelm (but do not negate) gravitational forces. The efficiency of tidal disassembly increases as the interloper gets closer to the planet.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/arny/instructor/graphics/ch09/0914.jpg

Although you have correctly pointed out that the sl-9 ‘string of pearls’ was too long to leave a tight formation crater chain, you have ignored an obvious possibility; what if sl-9 entered Jupiter’s gravity well from the plane of the ecliptic? Instead of taking a two year lap around the neighborhood, what if sl-9 impacted Ganymede or Callisto on it’s outbound leg with only a day or two at most to separate? This is only one example of the poignant irony you’ve displayed in this forum: you are able to develop elaborate and imaginative fantasies involving trigger happy, star faring aliens and improbable conspiracies and still claim that you can not imagine a natural cause for crater chains. As if that wasn’t bad enough, you then have the audacity to invoke the razor. You actually believe that space war is a simpler explanation than natural causes? Yikes. Rather biased imagination.

Two fucking years you’ve been looking at those pix and you didn’t notice that the impact structures are on the Jupiter facing hemispheres? (*the moons in question are tide-locked)

In light of this possibility, let’s re-examine that catena on Ganymede:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/ganymede1.jpg

Beginning at the lower right and extending to the upper left, we can see that the first couple of craters are much smaller than the 7th and 8th craters. This is consistent with a natural cause and very problematic for your bizarre proposal. And you are seriously suggesting that this is evidence of a ‘strafing run’? Well, what the hell were ‘they’ shooting at? (rrrrrrrrr-tut-tut-tut-tut-whump-whump-whump) And why employ such a wide variety of explosive yields? I see no evidence of anything but barren icescape. Considering that a lot of those craters are over 20 miles in diameter, I’d call that an unjustifiable waste of ordinance. Oh yeah, why haven’t ‘they’ stomped Earth into submission? The capabilities you’ve proposed are more than sufficient to crush our civilization in less than a day. What’s the holdup?

There are so many problems with your ideas that it would take pages to properly address each one. I’m going to shift the focus from the (lack of) content to the style of presentation. On your web site you attempted spin control before the fact by claiming others wanted to stifle ‘discussion’. That is so false. Posters simply pointed out that you have not provided evidence in support of your outrageous claims. And yes, of course you bear the burden because you are the one making the proposal. And hell no, nothing you’ve provided thus far qualifies as evidence worthy of serious consideration. Your attempts at rhetoric fail for a reason. Mere assertion does not an argument make.


From “For Argument’s Sake”. Mayberry and Golden,


“Argument is traditionally defined as the process of demonstrating, through the presentation of reasonable evidence, the likelihood or certainty of a given proposition (a statement that can be affirmed or denied).”


And:


“An argument is different from an opinion. An opinion is a comparatively soft point of view---a position based not so much on reasonable evidence as on belief, intuition, or emotion. Argument, on the other hand, is a position supported by clear thinking and reasonable evidence, with a secure connection to documented facts. While arguments rarely prove a proposition to be absolutely true, they do demonstrate the likelihood or probability of that proposition. Opinions tend to be expressions of personal taste or experience and are untested by the systematic application of reasonable principles.”



You have not presented an argument at all. You’ve simply declared your (far-fetched and unsupported) opinion.

Your glaring lack of knowledge in the fields of geology, astronomy and rhetoric are not my major objections to your ideas. My primary peeve here is that fear mongering is extremely irresponsible. Nancy and the planet X’ers are bad enough; we don’t need another ‘the end is neigh’ cult group.

FieryIce wrote:

“You really don't understand it, WellCookedFetus?....you really don't see how simplistic it is?”

That’s the problem. Your belief is too simplistic. Any one could counter with a tabloid headline of their own, like:

“Captain Nemo and his navy of lizard men caused those crater chains.”

You have no case, you have no argument and your wild speculations do not qualify as a theory.

Welcome AKA Heathen!, Nice spanking of these kooks. http://www.dark-smilies.de/pics/sm/sm009.gif

I vote that this thread be closed as it has been debunked so many times it not funny. Craterchains (Norval and FieryIce refuse to listen and have even resorted to delusional insulting, their lack of reasonable replies over the last several pages is practically spaming as they do not even reply to our arguments.

Hello WellCookedFetus. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Our efforts to stand fast against the rising tide of imbecility may prove futile, but what the heck, it was worth a shot.

Wonderful post AKA Heathen! It warms my heart to see pseudoscience get a spank in the ass like this.

Doubtless Fiery and Norval will post some nonsense to justify their claim in spite of your refutation. Or they will ignore it altogether and keep on like it never was posted. That is how the cranks work.

FUCK !
You pseudo debunkers just keep posting the same OLD crap and so called refutations that are already replied to. Besides being the ONLY other offered THEORY accepted by NASA as having any semblance of reality and probability the DISINFORMATION agents just keep popping off at the fart lips.

Disclosure IS inevitable. Will YOU survive it?

you guys are delusional! If disclosure never happens will you survive it, I don't think so you will die old and will have "loser" marked on your grave stones!

This is a perfect example of a thread which should be locked.

Craterchains posted some obscure theory of his, with little evidence. Then somebody (Heathen) posts a breakdown of why it is wrong, and all they respond with is "FUCK!" No scientific discussion, just "FUCK!"

Well I guess our response should be:
FUCK! Lock this thread already!

I vote it be the first thread to be placed in the "recycling bin" sub-forum that will hopefully be created.

the master fish made the suggestion of a recycling bin thread. I wouldn't think the entire thread should go into it, but atleast the 'fuck your are a turd face' posts could.

LOCK this thread!

Let the dead bury the dead.