We would like your opinions on what we represent as proof of ETI and that they had a war in our solar system. Maybe this is also one of the signs of the heavens we are to see? Possibly, was it the wars spoken of that would take place in the heavens?
Your comments will be read, but we won’t respond except to email.
Crater Chains of War (http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html)
http://www.craterchains.com/ns/02281997_browse.jpg

Each crater in the chain is about 5 miles across. Every General would want a Tommy Gun like this I am sure. We don’t have the smoking gun, just the bullet holes.

Disinformation Agents
Has anyone else noticed that certain topics seem to get attacked, made fun of, lied about openly, ignored, and attempts are continuously being made to disrupt or change the topic? We have noticed another “pattern” besides crater chains. BBS and forum’s boards are full of these agents that are there to keep us from learning about some things. The methods used form a pattern which can be found by reading that “persons” posts from many threads.
This is why I wont respond in this thread, only by email.

Disinformation Agents
Has anyone else noticed that certain topics seem to get attacked, made fun of, lied about openly, ignored, and attempts are continuously being made to disrupt or change the topic? We have noticed another “pattern” besides crater chains. BBS and forum’s boards are full of these agents that are there to keep us from learning about some things. The methods used form a pattern which can be found by reading that “persons” posts from many threads.
This is why I wont respond in this thread, only by email.

Funnily enough I have. The topics brought up are those that are, errr, started by kooks and woo woo's. If you've been on the Net long enough you tend to spot the type and realise rational debate and conversation are not going to work. Derision is often the first and only way to deal with it.

Examples being Brad Guth who claims Venus harbours intelligent life. Alexander Abian who claims the Universe is a Plutonium Atom. Alexander Abian (deceased) who claimed to have overthrown Einstein. Others can be be found at www.crank.net.

By implying there are a number of organised disinfo agents targeting certain topics is the mark of the Kook. Welcome kook.

Please visit www.skepticult.org for more info.

I was looking at that skepticcult.org mesageboard and noticed people hunt for "kooks"

Those websites are full of shit , labeling everyone who thinks ufos exist (ect) mad!

How Pathetic

Also, why is this forum full of skeptics?, i dread to think of the ratio in here :rolleyes:

Also, why is this forum full of skeptics?

I was just about to ask why forum is so full of flakes!

Why hunt for Kooks, there's plenty of them on Usenet. If you don't know what Usenet is you don't know the Net.

Why are there Skeptics here? Perhaps because of the sites URL. Something to do with Science Forums, perhaps. Thought that was obvious.

IMO, you have two options in the world. The first; anything that looks odd, strange or unnatuaral has a perfectly mundane explanation if you can be bothered learning enough to find it. The second; ascribe to the supernatural or aliens. That the second requires massive assumptions is the problem.

Once someone takes the second assumption and assumes any one who thinks differently is a 'flake', 'mad', living in denial or a sekrit NASA disinfo agent, they are kook.

Everyone is a skeptic. Some are just more gulliable.

Take this thread for example. There isn't any evidence that these are anything besides meteor impacts. It also doesn't make much sense as to why a weapon would leave marks like those over such a large area. The poster is taking something fairly simple and assuming it to be much more complex.

I also find it funny how almost every kook on this forum post thread after thread which effectively all say the same thing. You've got this guy, fluid1957, macm, Dwayne R (used to), Prostiuis (how it is spelled), boombox, etc... It's an interesting attribute of most quacks.

First thing that pops into my head is that its not scientific to say "this cant be hapening by chance, ergo its evidence of ET's."
All you can say scinetifically is "we have this interesting phenomena that doesnt seem to match up with crrent theory very well. It needs more investigating."
Tell me, how much radiation would be left after nukes?
Then, what percentage of craters have these alignments? If its only a minuscule percentage, then surely it can be ascribed to chance, randomness.
But ultimately, you cant go around saying theres Aliens out there or there was a war just on evidence of these craters.

It would also require fairly stupid aliens. You don't bomb that muich area in a straight line after you have nukes. It's a complete waste. Find any area (even an area half the length of that shown here) which is highly dense with targets and is worth bombing. You won't.

aliens are aliens :rolleyes:

Yes, and meteor craters are not aliens

aliens are aliens

Flowers are Flowers
Doors are doors
Meteor craters are meteor craters

Your point? Again.

Do you really believe that a line of craters is solid evidence of intelligent life outside the Earth? Why don't we see them on Earth? I mean, if these where evidence of alien weapons they should be here as well.

More over, it doesn't make sense at all for these to be weapons.

Indeed. but I think I see where Norval is coming from. Take your Science Fiction weapon of choice, Laser, Mass Piler, Plasma Cannon, Tachyon Trebuchet or whatever mounted on a war ship. Have it fire rail gun style at the escaping speeder with the rebel princess in it. End result, crater chains.

That this requires a completely delusional state of mind is obvious.

And that they'd have the technology to shoot multiple nukes from space, but can't seem to aim for shit. Or that they'd shoot continuously and in a straight line... not hitting a damn thing. Maybe Martians really were bad guys.

:)

Your average alien spaceship is obviously equipped with a cross hair targetting mechanism. Think WW II Spitfires or Millennium Falcon here. The target does not understand 'evasive maneveuring, Zeta 9' and is flying in a straight line trying to out run the enemy. The weapon only produces comparatively small scale effects, in accordance with SF film making.

Actually it looks either to be a Debris trail from a meteor as it breaks up entering the atmosphere, or if you look at it properly it's similar to the wake of a giant snowball when someone makes a snowman on a lawn.

The most remote possibility is that a civilization tried using Lazers to send communications and accidently cut the planet up, But that is not based on any science or proven fact (Maybe some scifi).

You've hit the main problem with this idea. It completely ignores the meteor/comet breakup idea and claims that it is impossible... yet doesn't explain why.

In the above photo you can clearly see many of the CS type crater chains with the characteristics we think show obvious intelligence as to cause. Of note are the three and possibly four time frames of occurrence. The predominant CS chain near the center running lower left to upper right appears to be the cleanest and so is probably the newest. Notice the CS chains just above and left of the dominant one. Now they appear to have been covered by dust debris, or possibly silt flow, and that gives us three time frames. Chain, material deposit, then another chain. There is a possible fourth time frame if after closer examination the mound at center right proves true, which seems to have been strafed very heavily to be perfectly blunt many times. If Mars had even a tenth of our water there would have been enough to cause these wash areas we see if larger single strike weapons were used. War is a terrible thought and every person that has been in combat knows this very personally, so look closely, and look hard, prove us wrong.
With the above comments we think the lower picture speaks for itself. And sadly enough, there are more areas showing these CS type crater chains on Mars. http://www.craterchains.com/ns/marscc1.jpg

These aren't even consistent in size. They just happen to be along a straight line, just as a meteor/comet breakup would be. If these were weapons they'd be the same size imapct craters.

For instance:
http://peacemaking.com/laos/images/laoskb.jpg
http://www.vietnamexp.com/MorePhotos/page11.htm

Anyone else find it funny that quacks never wish to actually address comments in public?

That is a very good picture of Laos, B-52 bombing, expecially the second url the picture titled "Results of B-52 Bombing". What these pictures do illustrate is that a B-52 type of bombing raid did not create CS chains also the accuracy of shoulder to shoulder craters is just not there in those Laos images.

Thank You Persol for the great Laos picture link.

It looks to me like it was a meteor moving at a very shallow trajectory, in fact it looks as if one chunk came down and another keeps going at a different trajectory.

As for the other scar marks, note these words "Meteor Shower".
Meteor showers can consist of a large meteor, that breaks up into small and small pieces creating multiple fragments.

But B-52 bombing is capable of producing 'shoulder to shoulder' chains. It just depends on altitude, speed of release (maybe fixed), and atmospheric effects. Seeing as how there are tons of these meteor/comet impact chains, some will statistically have the shoulder to shoulder properties seen. None of the images he shows however are shoulder to shoulder (there is overlap), and the sizes of the craters are not the same.

Interestingly enough, the craters in the center appear to be larger. This is seen in meteor breakups everyday on earth. Small pieces breakoff at first (and fall first). Then the thing basically just falls apart. The large & heavy pieces drop first, while the small pieces coast further. The only link I can currently find for this is the Columbia tracking.
http://www.tinyvital.com/images/ShuttleDisasterRadarTrack.jpg

Notice a resemblence?

Personally, I think the War on Mars was well documented by the astronomers, as is outlined on the page called "Astronomers Saw!" Astronomers Saw! (http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html)

Wow, through reading this, there is enough contradictory evidence and logic to say that the original post and the website is definitely bunk propagated by kooks.

But, of course, kooks thinking the way they do, they will completely disregard all contradictory evidence and maintain their pre-conceived notions.

There are better explanations than "a war occurred between unknown beings with unknown weapons"... such as - a meteor broke up in the atmosphere and pieces hit the planet at different times on the same trajectory.

We know what happened with what things, and what caused it. This is mainly because, we have seen it elsewhere and reason allows to imagine that scenario.

I am amazed such beliefs still exist.

Ontop of the whole fact that it looks like a meteor's trail, what reason would anyone have to bomb Mars?

Now before you say "because there was life on it", think about it what proof have you see up close and person, not photo evidence, I mean what have you been able to touch, to look at in great detail and exclaim it was life?

If such a bombing campaign appeared on this planet, there would still be landmarks, piece of structure etc. That was one reason for the testing of specific weapons originally as they were looking for a weapon that did as little structual damage as possible.

A whole desert planet littered in meteorite fragments doesn't look like a haven for life now, or look as if it ever had. The simplist test for life would either been for lichen/fungi growing on the darkerside of a rock, or a worm burrowing through the Mars (since you can't call it Earth.)

If both of those cases are met with a negative (that no worms, lichen/fungi exists) then why should any other life exist?

Without worms then the earth is not turned enough to allow things to grow. As for lichen and fungi, I'm just pointing it out as it occurs on tree's and even in deserts on Earth. In fact if life has ever been on that planet, then they should find the remenants of lichen, or a fossil of it.

Personally, I think the War on Mars was well documented by the astronomers, as is outlined on the page called "Astronomers Saw!" Astronomers Saw! (http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html)This is worse than I thought:
"Those astronomers that made these observations never realized that Mars was going through a nuclear holocaust, or far worse, and that the entire planet was being utterly destroyed."

This is worse than I thought:
"Those astronomers that made these observations never realized that Mars was going through a nuclear holocaust, or far worse, and that the entire planet was being utterly destroyed."

Thats what you meant right Persol.

So, they made an observation where they didn't realise a planet was being utterly destroyed, where the planet is still here with us today.

Anyway, how comes nobody with credability ever vouches for these sites? I mean serious professors that would stand their ground knowing they are completely right and would not suffer any forms of humiliation as they have corresponding evidence?

I mean serious professors that would stand their ground knowing they are completely right and would not suffer any forms of humiliation [if] they have corresponding evidence?What you meant right?:)

Indeed.

Admittedly I think there must be a mathematical equation that could plot the overall number of posts dedicated to various ludicrous theorums involving Mars. It's probably the same mathematics used for working out the rate of growth of cells, or mammals etc, or at least it bears the similarity of the overall reported UFO's that are counted in the release of Project Blue Book.

Notibly in the released information of Project Blue Book, there seemed to be an increase in UFO reports every 5 and 10 years after the first Publicised event (Like an aniversary prank call) , So does that mean in 2009 and 2014 there are going to be loads of people saying there has been life on Mars that wiped itself out with bombing runs?

Nah, this isn't nearly publicised enough... and won't be because of the obvious flaws. It will just come back the next time something lands on Mars. This shit always does...

I'm trying to find statistical data on meteor breakups. It should get the point across if the Columbia breakup photo didn't do it for me.

I decided to have a look around and found these:

Contains a meteor trail picture with TWO PARTS (split trajectory)
http://www.cyberbound.net/observatory/oakcreek/meteors.htm

Nice picture of a meteor trail
http://www.wa4dsy.net/personal/meteor.html

That second picture is a good example. You have two 'expansions' from the meteor having two seperate layers.

Better still, the average person can conduct an experiment in their own back yard. Simply create a bucket of loose paste consisting of water and clayey soil. Dip your hand in it and, assuming the viscosity is just about right, it will load up on your hand.

Cock the hand back with fingers extended and joined then sharply straighten the arm so as to fling the droplets of mud on the ground.

If one did this toward a muddy surface, one should expect to see "crater-chains." Note: all of the "meteorites" of mud originated from the same object (the hand). Perhaps two asteroids or moons impacted each other, flinging similar meteorites toward the surface of the planet.

If so, we would expect to see a couple remnants of satellites orbiting Mars, with at least one quite misshapen from the collision.

Righty, so supposedly these chains of craters were created by repeated dropping of ordnance, or some energy weapon. How come we can't see the remains of the target? Not a single road, leading to or from the area?

How come the craters haven't weathered. I mean, the _people_ that did this breathed some sort of atmosphere, didn't they. Must have, if the planet had an indigenous population and they were making war, they must have breathed something. But no, there is no weathering, so the atmosphere disappeared at the end of the 'war'.

I just can't believe what kooks manage to find to believe in. It truly amazes, me.

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.

To take issue with the logic of a few of your points:

3. The scientists offered no explanation prior to the 1994 SL9 comet break-up. They have had photos of crater chains since 1967.

We have photographs of many things we don't have an explanation for... it's possible that the Shoemaker-Levy impact gave the "scientists" an idea they didn't have before. In any case, this explanation is 9 years old... how long has the "nuclear war" explanation been around? More than 9 years, I hope, if you're making this criticism of "scientists".

4. Besides a couple of narrowly distributed journals these pictures never were brought to the publics attention till after comet SL9 impacted Jupiter.

Again, no one wants to look like an idiot. If you have a picture of something and show it to people, and they say "What's that?" and the best you can come up with is "I dunno," then you might not be too eager to flash your picture around too much after that happens a few times. It's also not useful to continue harping on a subject in the media when no new information comes to light for thirty years.

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.

Your THEORY is a THEORY too, and with no greater credibility unless you're claiming additional, corroborating evidence of the war-making.

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.

This is a poor analogy at best, and if you claim to be an informing authority you should steer clear of such an abuse of probability. The problems:

1) Relating interplanetary physics to a medium like the number/position outcome of a large group of dice is not in the least informative, either of the processes involved or of the probability of the occurrence in question. The average person is unable to answer this question: If you throw two dice, what is the probability that they will end up touching each other?
If the answer to that question is not intuitive, then your analogy is no better (possibly worse) than a description of the actual system that you're talking about.

2) Furthermore, because of the non-intuitive nature, most people who do not understand the fine points of the poor system of probability you are describing will still understand that your analogy is being creatively weighted to support your argument. It sounds an awful lot like saying, "The chances of this are the same as the chances of the following scenario happening: You throw a toothpick on the ground and it turns into Abraham Lincoln." It looks like some crap you made up.

3) This analogy also relies on an appeal to the consistency of probability, i.e. if something is really really unlikely then it will never happen more than once. No matter how unlikely an arrangement of planets and comets you imagine, nothing about our universe prevents that occurrence from happening many times.

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.

This is not a court of law and you cannot demonstrate Alien Nuclear War by the doctrine of Reasonable Doubt. This last-ditch recourse to fakey legal language is tiresome to say the least, because of the last sentence, where you attempt to make it appear that you've disproved the "chance" theory by the assertion that four stones in a row might have been arranged by an intelligent thing. The problems with this assertion:

1) We have independent, universally agreed upon evidence that intelligent things exist on the Earth. We have little to no evidence that intelligent things existed elsewhere in the Solar system prior to the creation of the crater chains (which they must have created in your theory).

2) Random arrangements of objects will take on a meaning in human perception that they were not given by any intelligent agent. A bowl of rice krispies may have fallen in an arrangement such that they form words. The words may be visible for all to see, and yet still have come about by chance and not by the guiding hand of an intelligence.

3) The chance theory, however lately it may have been decided upon, does have corroborating evidence in the form of a widely witnessed event, the SL9 impact. The Alien War theory has as its only evidence the very thing that it was invented to explain, which is the poorest kind of evidence that a theory can have.

4) At best, if you convince people that the Alien War theory is a possible theory, this still does not rule out the possibility of chance impact, however much you may try to imply so with your last-minute weaselwording.

I can't discount the possibility of an war of the Extraterrestrials, but I don't have any reason to believe it either. It remains in the category of theories with insufficient evidence, much like the "structures on other planets" photos that fluid1959 keeps posting.

Persol
Congratulations you also identified the anomaly of the seemingly tapered ends to many of these chains. We to find that interesting and are developing the theoretical why.

Phlogistician
Read carefully our data on Mars and what astronomers were reporting over the last 150 years. The canals disappeared; landmasses were destroyed or changed drastically altering the face of Mars. And a lot more evidence we don’t list. The photographic and astronomers notes are there for all to see. Planetary war will tend to blow away both atmosphere and water. There is your SETI pattern of non-random and sequential patterning!

BigBlueHead
So I take it you agree with the Bottke, Richardson and Love theory of chance?
Obviously you shouldn’t gamble. Astronomers were reporting what today we would identify as nuclear explosions many decades prior to 1945 when the BOMB was used.
Argue with the scientists, we are just putting it all together from their notes and photos.

I assume from your oblique reference that you at least skimmed my criticisms of your argument, but I may be wrong; I'll address what you've said. The fact that scientists detected radiation bursts/emp effects like those from nuclear explosions doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since high-speed impact of two masses causes high-energy reactions of the same kind. When two objects strike each other at high speed it's not unusual to find radioactive byproducts afterward. I understand that many exotic forms of matter are theorized to have existed briefly in the SL9 impact, triple-bonded hydrogen and so on.

I am unwilling to try and dissect the Bottke/Richardson/Love papers (whichever one/ones you happen to be referring to) to understand your reference to their version of chance. I have not read them up until now... if you are willing to state more clearly what you mean, perhaps I'll be able to understand why your reference to throwing fifty dice and having them come up in some specific spatial arrangement is a more reasonable description of a system of probability.

As for your interpretation of the data, I would say that "scientists", whoever they are (apparently not Bottke & crew, anyway) are not to blame for the fact that you've inferred interplanetary nuclear war from their photographs. Many correctly gathered data have been wildly interpreted/misinterpreted over the years and I see no reason to blame the original observers/collectors of the data in this case.

I shall quote a peculiar passage from the <a href="http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html">Crater Chains</a> website:

Occums Razor meaning the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Making Occums Razor sometimes the hardest to accept.

This should really be fixed. Let's look at the actual wording of Ockham's razor:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

This quote is from <a href="http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html">this page</a>, which is a pretty good overview and should really be read by anyone who is going to throw "Occums razor" around. (Quick tip: It's not a law.)

BUT

In short, what does it really mean? "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" means that you shouldn't invent new things to explain something that can possibly be explained by extant things.

SO FOR INSTANCE

If you can't find evidence of ET's anywhere, you shouldn't use them as evidence because that would be adding them to a context where they were not previously considered in order to conveniently explain something - hence, multiplying entities beyond necessity.

If you are going to follow this theory, try to make your arguments as logical and waterproof as possible.

Edit: Also, when you say "Collaborative Evidence" do you mean "Corroborating Evidence"?

And - I think someone else on Sciforums is posting your picture of the copper mine in Peru and claiming that it's a strip mine on another planet. Can't remember who though.

Theres something else to add to this:

I use to weld some time ago, and sometime droplets of whitehot molten metal might fall to the ground, those droplets would be such an intense heat they would cause the cement to explode leaving little depressions.

You can tell a work surface floor was littered with such depressions.

If a meteor broke into fragments, the likelihood is that every piece that came off it would be at an extremely high temperature from entering Mars atmosphere, those fragments would first crash into the ground making a small depression, and then from the heat the ground would start exploding like the cement. (since Sandstone is very similar)

It would make an already sized impact hole, look a lot larger.

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,

The quoted material below comes from the link CraterChains provided. If there's any concern that the content or context has been altered, see the original at http://www.craterchains.com/cct.html.

The reason we are questioning the accepted theory.
"The example used to illustrate the tidal disruption forces has been the comet Shoemaker Levy 9 (SL9) that broke apart and impacted Jupiter in 1994."
"Crater chains of the type we are investigating and questioning are not varied in size, [as in the SL9 breakup) 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."

In order to support that contention, CraterChains has to assume that the "Tidally Disrupted Comet theory" is the only explanation (other than intelligent intervention) that can account for crater chains or aligned craters of meteorite impacts.

William F. Bottke of Cornell University has suggested that crater chains can occur when an object passes so close to a planet as to nearly "scrape" the planet's surface (Monastersky, 1998). "At that intimate distance, it would pass through the atmosphere and fall prey to an array of destructive influences, such as intense air friction, that could combine to shatter the object."

CraterChain's research doesn't seem to take this into account. Nor is there any modeling of the effect that the Mars atmosphere would have on such low-trajectory, low-altitude objects. Therefore part 3 of the CraterChain contention can be ignored as uniformity of impact in spacing, width, magnitude and alignment cannot be demonstrated as unlikely under the conditions presented to the objects of impact. Quite simply: Mars and Jupiter are two vastly different planets with two vastly different forces at work on objects of impact.

Geologist are examining the possibility of crater chains on earth, but one also has to consider that the surface of Earth is more active in both depositional forces and plate tectonics than that of Mars. The Monastersky reference cited above describes on-going research, albeit less than fruitful, in that area.

But crater chains do exist on other bodies in the Solar System. Three chains have been observed by Voyager on Ganymede and Callisto has eleven (Astronomy, 1997). In the Mare Nubium, west of Ptolemaeus on the Moon's nearside, is an apparent chain 50 km long known as the Davy crater chain (Astronomy, 1994) as well as a second possible chain in the northern rim of Abulfeda, just east of Ptolemaeus. The problem with finding chains on the Moon may well be successive impacts.

What CraterChain (the person) would have us believe then, is that wars were waged on Callisto, Ganymede, the Moon, Mars, and perhaps several other bodies in the Solar System on the basis that nature doesn't create patterns. Nevermind that there is no evidence or artifacts to support the "war" hypothesis.

The Conclusion.
Picture 50 dice thrown, landing uniformly in line, same numbers in all directions. We
can only do that by hand or with robotics, and only by intent, by purposefully aligning them.
Uniform nonrandom impacts are not likely to occur with the known comet breakup
trajectories (sic).

The evidence says otherwise. I'll concede that the theory of naturally forming crater chains is not demonstrated conclusively, but it seems clear that the preponderance of evidence is for a natural explanation and against an ET intelligence one!

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.

The simplest in this case is the contention that one or more cosmic events occurred within Mars' orbit or perhaps even orthogonal to it which predicated the chains of craters on the planet's surface. That an intelligent life evolved on Mars, then waged war upon itself is far more complicated than asteroids, comets, moons and planets colliding. One need only look at Demos and the asteroids not far from the Mars orbit to see that.

References:
Astro News, (Sep., 1994). Great comet crashes on the moon? Astronomy, Vol. 22, Issue 9

Astro News, (Apr. 1997). Do crater chains exist on earth? Astronomy, Vol. 25, Issue 4

Monastersky, Richard, (May 16, 1998) Geologists Link A Chain Of Craters Science News, Vol. 153, Issue 20

Anybody wonder if some get paid by how much they type?
Here is a picture of what a comet SPLATTER would look like if it broke up just seconds before impactin :D

http://www.craterchains.com/ns/europa1a1.jpg

The type we are not investigating, this is a Bottke Chain on the lower part of this photo of Europa. :rolleyes:

When SkinWalker finishes washing hands from all that mud, after that little experiment maybe we will get web cam photos of the crater chains created? I think some where we mention dice or a cookie sheet with soft material and to toss marbles, we will give the benefit of the doubt as all the marbles are going to be the same size. Unlike a true broken comet. Hell, toss them one at a time for all I care,, it aint gonna create a CS type of crater chain and I do have my doubts that any are gonna form a line of craters as accurately as a comet supposedly did. Besides scientists agree that all the craters in a chain formed simultaneously. So maybe you should toss all fifty marbles at once?

Face it... you gave it a shot, but your model has flaws. Big ones. In fact, dice & marbles aren't a model. Show me a computer model that takes into account the gravity, trajectory, altitude, atmospheric influences, etc. of an object that is breaking up on re-entry at a very oblique angle, and perhaps you'll be more convincing.

But all this talk about dice and marbles has little bearing on the effect of crater chains. "50 dice thrown, landing uniformly in line, same numbers in all directions" has nothing to do with an object or objects that may or may not have been comets impacting planets and moons in the Solar System. There is no correlation in probability and there is no correlation in materials and the forces acting upon those materials.

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on? uhmmm ae you sure that is mud you were using?

Hey guy, look up here, what friction?

Persol
Congratulations you also identified the anomaly of the seemingly tapered ends to many of these chains. We to find that interesting and are developing the theoretical why.
Don't be stupid. We already provided you the 'why'. It's seperation by gravity and friction.

The leap to ET is completely unfounded, has no supporting evidence and ignores the simple explanations.

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on?

Very true. So perhaps the atmospheric influences are important in that crater chains are more pronounced with a light to no atmosphere. Perhaps the lack of friction of atmosphere preserves the objects trajectoral and structural integreties.

But without a proper research model, one is left to blind conjecture.

You are the one that has "researcher" as an occupation in your profile. Surely you are aware of this.

in deep space SL9 continued separating farther and farther apart,, damn I really do wish you people would read up on all this crap first,,,, chuckles and smiles.

in deep space SL9 continued separating farther and farther apart,, damn I really do wish you people would read up on all this crap first,,,, chuckles and smiles.

Wow. Of course some are going to separate farther and farther apart. There is no way every scenario is the same. You are really reaching here. Feel the futility.

I really wish YOU understood that this is a different case. SL9 seperated because of gravitational tidal forces... NOT atmospheric effects.

And you assume that SL9 or comets are the only objects that impact other objects.

Craterchain:
Besides, we have to read up? You are making the claims. You have no support. We have already taken out your arguments. I want to see you try to publish an article in a scientific journal, I would not be able to wait to read the satire from the scientific community. It would be amazing. Go ahead, please, publish your hypothesis.

I have found that all kooks who try to claim and prove things in forums, almost always have a website, and they try to substantiate their claims there, and never try to be taken seriously. So, because of that, I think that is enough proof for me that you know you won't be taken seriously, because you know the ideas are flawed and will never hold up in any rational arena.

Otherwise, please, astound the world, get published in a reputable journal. Like Astronomy or Science.

Or, if you refuse, make up an excuse about how you can't. Come on, do it.

He probably doesn't agree with "conforming to the standards of the biased establishment."

But he won't mind using their work if it suits his contention.

Of course, they'll say anything to evade it.

Much like Sylvia Browne and nitpicking and not showing up for the 1 million dollar Randi challenge...

I have noticed this pattern all across pseudo-science.

See my critique of Graham Hancock in the Were we visited before? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32160) thread.

He is the epitome of pseudoscience and uses many of the predictable fallicies.

FOCL,and how much air on our moon, callisto, ganneymead, europa, phobos, and so on? uhmmm ae you sure that is mud you were using?

Hey guy, look up here, what friction?

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!

So why can't two objects collide then one breakup and its parts remain loosely together, while the trajectory takes it to a collision path with a moon or planet?

Given the number of impact craters throughout the solar system along with billions of years inertia, this is still a far more likely scenario than ET intelligence/catastrophic wars on other worlds.

I realize that one gets attached to a theory, even if far-fetched (particularly after playing with it for over "the past two years"). But it's time to face facts and understand... your hypothesis doesn't hold up.

we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years.

Crater - you didn't answer me. Publish your data and years of research, or stop lying.

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.

Many kooks get there papers submitted to NASA. Have you actually had it published? Why not?

Also, reference the other post you started with the same exact topic. It has an example of how these chains could actually be formed.

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.

Research? Funding? What about all that data you already have to support your documented and researched "THEORY"?

Why are you submitting to NASA? Submit it to peer review in a regular journal, or do you already know that they will reject it because it does not hold up?

In the late 1800's astronomers were focusing their telescopes and attention to Mars. Astronomers such as: Rev. Pietro Angelo Secchi, (1818-78); Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli, (1835-1910); Percival Lowell, (1855-1916); William Henry Pickering, (1858-1938); Andrew Ellicott Douglass, (1867-1962); Edward Emerson Barnard, (1857-1923); William Wallace Campbell, (1862-1938); William Huggins, (1824-1910); Camille Flammarion, (1842-1925); Eugène Michael Antoniadi, (1870-1944); Henri Perrotin, (1845-1904), Earl C. Slipher, (1883-1964); to list just a few.

What the astronomers of the late 1800's were discovering was canals on Mars, first called canali by Rev. Secchi in 1858 and Giovanni Schiaparelli in 1877. Many of these astronomers verified the canals and also noted seasonal changes on the surface that corresponded with the melting of the polar ice (Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) Science Investigation 1, The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight 2 or Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive, NASA)3. It seems at the end of 1800's early 1900's astronomers were recording canals, seasonal surface changes, theorized to be changes in possible plant growth and water dispersion. "In 1888...Perrotin 4 described having observed dramatic changes in a feature, named "Libya" by Schiaparelli, and assumed to be a continental land mass. "Clearly visible two years ago, it no longer exists today," and "By 1892, Perrotin 5 had switched his attention to watching for "bright projections" on Mars, reporting three in the summer of that year". By 1909 no signs of the canals existed according to Antoniadi 6.

In 1894 Percival Lowell 7 noted a tawny colored cloud of dust that extended over 300 miles and Percival Lowell from his research estimated the temperature on the surface of Mars to be an average of 48°F noted from the MOLA Science, NASA 8. Percival Lowell's temperature was later verified by the Russian Mars 3 lander. In 1971 the Mars 3 recorded temperature readings on the surface of Mars "the coldest point proved to be the north polar cap, where the temperature was -110°C (-166°F); elsewhere the values ranged from -93° to 13°C (-135°-55°F), depending on the latitude and time of day" (Sheeman, Chapter 12) 9. According to a Mars data web page, "Recent observations with the Hubble Space Telescope have revealed that the conditions during the Viking missions may not have been typical. Mars' atmosphere now seems to be both colder and dryer than measured by the Viking landers", (SEDS, The Nine Planets, Mars) 10. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STSci) report, MARS: A Cooler, Clearer World 11, states the fact several times that the Mars surface temperature has changed since Viking landing missions, constantly dropping in temperature. Fact, the Viking 1 landed on Mars on July 20, 1976, continuous recording data until Nov. 11, 1982, over six years of recordings.

Mariner 9 12 waited until the cloud storm of 1971 had subsided somewhat to activate the camera. A similar cloud storm was observed in 1956. At that time Mariner 9 13 recorded the canyon Valles Marineris whereas the canyon had never been viewed as a canyon prior to Mariner 9. The canals had been viewed, surface changes had been viewed but never a massive canyon.

According to Planetscapes, VIKING ORBITER VIEWS OF MARS, M.H. Carr, et. al., NASA SP-441 14:
-The canyons do not form a well-integrated drainage system
-Indicate downward subsidence of canyon floors along faults
-Impact craters, which are so numerous on other Martian terrains, are scare within Valles Marineris
-No evidence of flow of water has been found within Valles Marineris, although some channels on the adjacent upland are abruptly truncated by steep canyon walls
-Because these canyons are poorly linked with one another, and their floors not a regularly graded slope, they could not have formed as water drainage features.

In 1954 National Geographic 15 sponsored a Mars observation project at Lamount-Hussey Obervator, Bloemfontein, South Africa on Naval Hill an altitude of 4888 feet. From this National Geographic sponsored expedition 20,000 pictures were taken of Mars. The pictures themselves stand as their own interpretation. The National Geographic article 16 resulting from this project was "New Light on the Changing Face of Mars, A Huge Green Area Almost the Size of Texas Appears in Photographs Made by National Geographic Society-Lowell Observatory Mars Expedition to South Africa", September 1955, pages 427 to 436 written by Dr. E.C. Slipher. The picture in the National Geographic article reveals the areas mentioned as blue-green seasonal change. September 1954, two years before the 1956 planet wide dust storm.

Various observers over those earlier years with differences in equipment, varying observation periods but still these anomalies on Mars were verified by other researchers

References:
1 http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
2 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/ETEmain.html
3 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031112.html
4 -5 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Perrotin.html
6 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Antoniadi.html
7 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/LowellP.html
8 http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
9 -12-13 http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/online.bks/mars/chap12.htm
10 http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html
11 http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/background-text/plntwthr.txt
14 http://www.planetscapes.com/solar/history/SP-441/ch3.htm
15-16 The National Geographic, The Complete National Geographic 112 Years, "New Light on the Changing Face of Mars, A Huge Green Area Almost the Size of Texas Appears in Photographs Made by National Geographic Society-Lowell Observatory Mars Expedition to South Africa", Dr. E.C. Slipher, 1955, pg 427-436.

All these references are considered reliable sourses, each reference is information of scientific investigation; from Nasa, to individual scholars, even the National Geographic Society.
This information documents the changes Mars went through and in our rescent past.

If there is an anomoly that appears not just on Mars but many of the planetary bodies in our solar system, if not all, if this anomoly is brought to your attention, if this anomoly is not explained properly by the present scientific communities theory of causality such as with W. Bottke, Richardson and Love's tidal disruption theory, since their simulation as W. Bottke himself admits does not generate random size, then I put the issue to all of you and the science community as their responsibility to investigate this anomoly further because the crater chains labeled CS chains is far too uniform, too extensive in size to be explained away by the happen chance of ice and mud astroid or comet.
It is not your responsibility as someone putting themselves forward as interested bodies in the theater of science to character assassinate individuals putting forward information that illustrates the accepted theories is not the model of explaination for in this particular example the causality of the anomoly known as crater chains. It is the responsibility of the science community and those interested bodies in the threater of science to investigate crater chains for such reasons as the chain anomoly is extensive in size, covers massive area, is uniform in overal configuation, is as the science community has already stated formed simultaneously. Any interested bodies in the theater of science that resorts to such tactics as verbal or otherwise assaults on anothers character or line of questioning in this issue is not using viable scientific, mathematical or logical reasoning resulting in unusable answers to the line of questioning.
Mr. Craterchains has possed a viable line of investigation into the anomoly known as crater chains, now defined as CS chains, it is the responsibility of the science community and those interested bodies in the theater of science to further investigate without banter of ones logical reasoning or assaults on anothers character.

FieryIce said:
Mr. Craterchains has possed a viable line of investigation into the anomoly known as crater chains, now defined as CS chains, it is the responsibility of the science community and those interested bodies in the theater of science to further investigate without banter of ones logical reasoning or assaults on anothers character.

I am amazed that you would give this conclusion to an otherwise mostly reasonable post. The scientific community is not responsible for chasing down Mr. CraterChains' theories; as a researcher, he should be (and is, for that matter) doing this himself. My criticisms of his logical reasoning are for the most part perfectly sound, and if he is a conscientious researcher then he should address them (either by discounting them with a reasonable argument or taking them into account), thereby strengthening his theory.

Failures of logical reasoning are crippling to a scientific theory, and I have already cited an example of one from Mr. CraterChains' literature.

I'll requote from my earlier post. Bear in mind that this is one of the PREMISES that leads to his CONCLUSION of interplanetary war, and if the premise falls down then his conclusion is in doubt:
Occums Razor meaning the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Making Occums Razor sometimes the hardest to accept.

Disregarding slight spelling/grammatical errors which are of little consequence, Mr. CraterChains should recognize that this is a misinterpretation of a philosophical principle. Furthermore, the actual form of the philosophical principle (Do not multiply entities beyond necessity) actually argues against his interstellar war theory, because the interstellar war theory requires the invention of two mutually hostile civilizations (new entities) of which we have no other real evidence.

There is no reason to believe that "the simplest explanation is most likely to be true". Given almost any explanation of a phenomenon, I can think of a simpler, patently false explanation for that phenomenon.

By fixing this problem Mr. CraterChains would have a more convincing argument specifically and also improve his credibility in general. Why then would you think it is bad to criticize his logical arguments when those arguments led him to the conclusion that you are helping him defend?

Well folks, I have to admit also that she did a good job. As “Mr. Crater Chains” (grins and laughs) it is true I probably do have an obligation to disseminate the information and will do so when requested. That Ockham's razor was even used is because it has been used by several in trying to refute our arguments. And each time we have managed to convince them that we do have the most reasonable theory and the least needy of any further theories, just the why. Bottke et all, on the other hand admit that they have numerous arguable points in their theory. But it was the ONLY one anybody had at the time. My personal reaction when I first saw a crater chain was the infamous “Oh shit!”. Now about two years later when the Mars anomalies of astronomers were pointed out to me last month by “Ms. Crater Chains” (focl) it got the same reaction, “OS”. We also got the same reaction from NASA, “OS”. The only other “OS” reactions have come from people that have a military combatant or explosives background. If this is a message from ET, it is one hell of a message that nobody was expecting or had even considered, till about a year ago. Considering the impact potential of this information and the responses gotten so far at these boards, how are we handling it would you say? Me, myself, I could really use a supply of underwear thank you very much, and a shower to get all this crap off me. Thank you to all those that have given their observations and comments, most were taken in the spirit they were offered, some were taken for their obvious worth.

I'm not willing to support Bottke & Crew's paper because it's not really my field of expertise and I haven't really read it. I am more concerned that, since you're putting forward your theory anyway, you put it forward in the clearest and most objective way possible. (I recognize that perfect objectivity is not possible.)

Edit: One last point on Ockham's razor - William of Ockham probably suggested this principle to support the concept of God, a single entity that explains everything. At its heart Ockham's razor is a religious concept, whatever people may say about it now.

thed,

How can you put any credence into the crank.net website when they label such credible institutions such as 'The National institute for Discovery Science'(Link below) as a Fringe organizations. They even mis-spelled Dr. Bruce Maccabee's(Baccabee) name on their own Web page?! If anything, the crank site is the one that needs to be called out.

www.nidsci.org/

What are all you debunkers so afraid of?

We're not afraid of anything. What we WANT though are theories that aren't made strictly of assumptions. Strong evidence makes a theory respectible, not wild guesses. It's one thing to be opened-mined; it's another thing to be gullible altogether and not listen to construstive criticism over a controversial theory.

Rubble pile comet theory, or
ETI caused theory.

The only two theories being investigated by NASA and I know which one I am putting my money on.

blackholesun,

I thank you for your civilized response. It's a far cry from the numerous character attacks I've been reading on this site recently.

One point I'd like to make is that to often every conspiracy & individual gets lumped into the same group. There are many crazy theories out there, and many crazy individuals behind some of these conspiracies. But, that doesn't make all of them unsubstantiated.

When you say assumptions, I'm not quite following you. I lean towards the side that says we have been visited. I take this side because of all the collaborating evidence. Military first-hand eyewitness testimony. Pilot testimony. Intelligence personel testimony. The numerous Govmt contradictions, and poor attempts at trying to explain away the more difficult reports are just a sampling of the evidence that leans me in the direction that something IS happening. What, I could only guess. BUT, I do not base my opinions on mere assumptions.

My apologies for getting off topic here.

I haven't looked at this issue close enough yet, but I felt the need to respond to the numerous character attacks towards the author. IMO, he was mearly posting a single possible theory, and didn't deserve the level of sarcasm & attacks he received.

"Rubble pile comet theory, or
ETI caused theory.

The only two theories being investigated by NASA and I know which one I am putting my money on."

Or in other words you already have a closed mind, like the people you castigate.

Vrob: My "attacks" on craterchains were largely constructive. I felt that his analogy for the probability of a crater chain forming (50 dice that all line up) was not a reasonable model of probability and didn't communicate any meaning. I attempted to clarify his use of a philosophical principle which could be taken to mean the opposite of what he was using it for. I also criticized the logical structure of the arguments in his post.

Though I am at present unwilling to believe that a Solar system-wide war caused these geological formations, I have attempted to restrict myself to constructive criticism to avoid the "yes it is no it isn't" argument that often ensues in these discussions. If craterchains pays attention to my criticisms, and his theory can stand up after he takes them into account, it will be a better theory. If it doesn't stand up, then we'll keep looking.

BigBluehead,

After reading your posts in this topic again, I hope you can see that my comments were not directed towards you.

Sorry... autodefense.

thed,

How can you put any credence into the crank.net website when they label such credible institutions such as 'The National institute for Discovery Science':snip::

Errr, it may give you a clue about the validity of that site.

What are all you debunkers so afraid of?

Absolutely nothing. If one of these alternative thinkers is proven correct then more power to them. The evidence and facts stand by themselves. The unfortunate problem is that they do not stand up to testing.

Science is no different. If you think you have an idea that is ground breaking you have to stand up for it, accept the flak and defend it against many who will say you are wrong. Only when the idea starts getting backed by data will people listen to you.

What I don't get is that alternative thinkers think they are being given special treatment for speaking out. They are not. Sauce for the goose etc.

I've found the Alien who caused the Crater Chains.

<img src="http://planettom.home.mindspring.com/mars.jpg" border="0">

Errr, it may give you a clue about the validity of that site.

Are you serious?

So you're saying that if it's on the Crank site, then it's 100% bogus. Crank can't be wrong. :rolleyes:



Absolutely nothing. If one of these alternative thinkers is proven correct then more power to them. The evidence and facts stand by themselves. The unfortunate problem is that they do not stand up to testing.

What are you talking about? Alternative thinkers?

Science is no different. If you think you have an idea that is ground breaking you have to stand up for it, accept the flak and defend it against many who will say you are wrong. Only when the idea starts getting backed by data will people listen to you.

What happens when our level of scientific recognition isn't able to verify an event? Are you saying if we can't bottle it up and varify it's existence, then it doesn't exist?

Could it be that there are some things that remain beyond our level of scientific study. Or, that the subject is being studied at a classified level by an unknown agency?

What I don't get is that alternative thinkers think they are being given special treatment for speaking out. They are not. Sauce for the goose etc.

Who's looking for special treatment? What I often see is people asking valid questions about the world/universe around us, only to be attacked with sarcasm & character assasinations. Why Thud? Even your next post with the photo is an attack on the very subject.

I'll ask again. What are you afraid of?

I'd also appreciate if you answer the other questions I posed to you in this thread in a civilized manner & not with some sly sarcastic remark.

Are you serious?

So you're saying that if it's on the Crank site, then it's 100% bogus. Crank can't be wrong.

I never said that but it was implied. Mcabbee(sic) is a well known crank. The owner of crank.net was a well respected poster to sci.astro who had a good sense of what was cranky or not. I for one trust their judgement.

What are you talking about? Alternative thinkers?

Those who have thoughts alternative to the mainstream or seek to propose an alternative view point without good cause. A polite way of saying Kook.

What happens when our level of scientific recognition isn't able to verify an event? Are you saying if we can't bottle it up and varify it's existence, then it doesn't exist?

Now there is a deep question. If the event is a one off that can not be verified then it falls foul of bacon's rules of Science.

If the event can not be explained by current science, but is reproducible, then it falls on Science to explain it. You have the choice of excepting that explanation or not. See previous comments on defending your point of view.

Could it be that there are some things that remain beyond our level of scientific study. Or, that the subject is being studied at a classified level by an unknown agency?

If it is beyond our level of understanding then it falls beyond current science. That is, we do not have the methods to describe what is happening. This does not make the thing paranormal. A good scientist should recognise that they have good data but no models to explain it.

The problem starts when people ascribe supernatral properties to something they do not understand.



Who's looking for special treatment? What I often see is people asking valid questions about the world/universe around us, only to be attacked with sarcasm & character assasinations. Why Thud? Even your next post with the photo is an attack on the very subject.

You see valid questions, I see wild supposition.

People see things they can not readily explain and ascribe it to aliens, always aliens. When pointed to research presenting an alternative viewpoint they ignore the research and claim they are right. The sceptics (presenting the alternative view point) are then portrayed as closed minded (they can't except the original proposal) and the proposer feels they are right due to the comments made against them.

The issue here is that the sceptic initially tries to present a reasoned argument against one who is not willing to listen to the argument. Then scorn is poured on any who disagree with their pet theory of the proposer. After dealing with many people like this the only way of dealing with the issue is sarcasm from the outset.

Norvalis not asking valid questions of anything. They are posting pictures of mars and slyly claiming they are indicative of something. Anyone who disagrees gets a flaming. Interestingly, I've not.

I'll ask again. What are you afraid of?

Again, I'm not afraid of anything. Except walking a tightrope at 2Km or cavediving and other bloody stupid stunts.

I'd also appreciate if you answer the other questions I posed to you in this thread in a civilized manner & not with some sly sarcastic remark.

You have yet to meet sly sarcasm. Hopefully I've been bluntly honest.

I already stated my case, a Meteorite breaking up creates a chain if the angle of decent is correct, No comets and No ETI.

When I stated my understanding I wasn't looking at "Debunking" someones theory, I was mearly pointing out what natural event would create such a feature on the surface of Mars.

I also mentioned that there would be remains littering the surface, afterall there would be no one to cover them up, however Mars from NASA's photo's does not look anything like that. In fact it looks a very hostile and barren world, with no physical proof of it being anything other than that.

The main thing with Mar's no being seen close up, all the particular groups and theorists are starting to find their pet theories are being tested, or proven wrong.
To those groups and theorists I state you should prepare yourselves to find out that your theories "might" be wrong.

The worst case scenario Stryderunknown, is that we are correct :eek: in our theory. Ever look closely at bomb damage assessment pictures of remains of surface atom bomb explosions? We have. :(

ok that i think could cause crater chanes??, a comit or some object flying through space that is spinning really fast and some of the rock comes off and forms a line and thus forms a chane. the objet will nto hit but the small recks will. or what coudl cause it to do that is and explosion off anouther planet from a crator and the debre in a line and most of the debre gets taken out from anouther planet but a section of the debre ring hits the planet mard

Actually I did already look at the atomic bomb test information, thats why I spotted that Trinity ("Fat Man" testing) is due West of Roswell. (coincidence?)

Looking at the overhead photo of the nuclear creator, it was very small, and not very deep since the force of the explosion takes the easiest route possible, which is through the air rather than the ground.

The craters on Mar's are definitely impact ones, not control explosive ones. In fact you can even look at the craters to get an idea of the trajectory, if the trajectory was too shallow the effect would have been far different.

If you still think it was some alien weapon, explain were they bombs dropped from a craft flying over, or fired from ground cannons?

I will still back a meteor breaking up as the answer.
http://www.cyberbound.net/observatory/oakcreek/astro_images/BUR-MET.jpg

I believe the word strafe was used on the website, which indicates airborne/spaceborne craft.

Was mars dystroyed by war?

No.

Yes it is west of Roswell NM, and just a bit south of the Carlsbad Caverns to add a bit more intrigue to the area. In reality explosives have different properties, some blow down, some sideways, and some upward. Atomic explosions are sideways. For a much bigger crater made by atomic tests, look at Bikini Atoll. And, yes these crater chains appear as strafing from the comments of experienced military personal.

One also has to consider that the purpose of nuclear weapons is such that it is hoped one can avoid dropping/delivering multiple bombs/warheads in an adjacent proximity. It's a bit anthropocentric, but Earth cultures developed nuclear weapons to great expense and difficulty, such that one ICBM contained multiple warheads that target several cities or industrial complexes.

Conventional warheads & bombs, however, are utilized in "strafing" and carpet bombing strategies. But these craters are easily assimilated by erosional forces since they are much shallower and, presumably, created in a habitable environment.

But then, the whole idea that a war of atomic nature was conducted on other worlds is anthropocentric in and of itself. Why assume that other civilizations of other worlds (assuming that they exist) would be predisposed to conduct war. It's because we assume since Earth civilizations conduct war, it is a universal concept.

The bottom line is, there is no artifactual or epigraphical evidence to support the idea that other civilizations have ever existed in our solar system on any other planet except Earth. To make the leap that "a pattern exists in craters" that cannot readily be demonstrated, therefore another civilization existed is poor science. There are too many other, more plausible (and probable) explanations. In addition, there are, undoubtedly, explanations that have yet to be considered.

Craterchains: nuclear explosions are spherical. This is why nuclear warheads are designed to go off in an "airburst" a few miles off the ground - they do more damage that way than by exploding on the ground.

Whether this is still true when there is no atmosphere is a different question.

The entire concept that the whole entire universe revolves around humans, the human prespective is anthropocentric in and of itself. To think in this huge universe that humans are the only intelligent creature is anthropocentric.
This is a small, shallow crater (1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep):
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Storax.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Sedancrater1.jpg

This is a small, shallow crater (approx. 5 miles wide):
http://www.craterchains.com/ns/PIA00514.jpghttp://www.craterchains.com/ns/PIA00581L.jpg

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00514

Yes, but to think that there are highly technologically advanced creatures when you can't find any may be jumping the gun a bit.

To be able to find evidence of a civilization on Mars, for instance, is going to require a much more widespread high-definition survey of the planet. It's unlikely that the artifacts of an intelligent species would be completely destroyed by any kind of energy, particularly if the war only happened in the last few centuries as Craterchains has postulated.

A radioactivity assay of the soil might help to determine whether such high-energy weapons were being used there.

Skinwalker
You are thinking, good, but you will have to come out of the box a bit farther to try and rationalize the what and how of these chains. That evidence you mention that is needed to support our theory can only be obtained by dedicated research and the access to the data.
There are no other probable or even possible explanations that can adequately explain the formation of these crater chains by known physics.

BBH
We’re not jumping the gun, we haven’t found that, but I think we found the bullet holes? (just kidding) Lets hope that we are really getting all the data from Rover, as I do suspect that there has to be artifact survival also. A nut or bolt or something? Yes, I agree that the radiation patterns need to be looked at closely. We have some data along those lines and are examining that.

ADDED
Read the scientists words carefuly.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950715.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html

Skinwalker,

You could perceive where ever there is life out there in the universe there will be one main constant, and that is the need for survival.

Our lone planet could seem to some interstella traveller an oasis within a vast cold unbecoming desert, the desert of which I speak is that of what we know as "Space".

Many other worlds exist, but to all of which we know are desolate, barren and too hostile for life to survive.

Perhaps if our planet had contact with an alien specie, it wouldn't just be a simple "Hello" but more of a "Move over and let us drink".

If this was the case I'm sure that "war" would insue, based upon the protection of territory and resources, however even if such a war was declared I doubt either side would go to the extent of wiping out an entire planet and it's atmosphere, as doing so would mean the loss of resources and any planets that survive would be fought over more heavily by both sides.

This is why CraterChains I still say the craterlines were formed by a meteor's path.

I notice APOD goes with the tidally disrupted comet theory...

ABOUT CALLISTO CRATER CHAIN
Explanation: NASA's robot spaceprobe Voyager 1, took this closeup image of the surface of Jupiter's crater scarred moon Callisto in 1979. A mysterious chain of craters is seen to extend diagonally across the image (upper left to lower right). What could cause the craters to line up in such a regular fashion? Scientists were at a loss to explain this crater chain along with several other chain like features observed on Callisto's surface. Fifteen years later, with the discovery of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, also known as the "string of pearls" comet, the mystery was solved. Comets whose orbits stray too close to Jupiter are torn apart by the strong gravity. When the individual pieces, strung out along the orbital path of the comet hit an object like Callisto, the sequence of impacts produces a crater chain.

ADDED BY EDDITING; And what about the years before that that they had photos of crater chains from our moon? 1967 to 1979, another 12 years of NO theory.

GANYMEDE
Explanation: This striking line of 13 closely spaced craters on Jupiter's moon Ganymede was photographed by the Galileo spacecraft in 1997. The picture covers an area about 120 miles wide and the chain of craters cuts across a sharp boundary between dark and light terrain. What caused this crater chain? Remarkably, the exploration of the Solar System, has shown that crater chains like this one are not unique, though they were considered mysterious until a dramatic object lesson was offered by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. In 1994 many denizens of planet Earth watched as huge pieces of this torn comet slammed into Jupiter itself in a spectacular series of sequential impacts. It is very likely that similar torn comets from the early history of the Solar System are responsible for this and other crater chains.

Well, of course as that WAS the ONLY proffered theory at the time. Prior to SL9 they didnt even have that!? Makes me kind of wonder why only ONE theory has ever been offered and it STINKS. (IMHO)

Well, of course as that WAS the ONLY proffered theory at the time. Prior to SL9 they didnt even have that!? Makes me kind of wonder why only ONE theory has ever been offered and it STINKS. (IMHO)

Everyone please note that mr. chains here clearly does not take himself seriously and is putting forth nothing more than a ruse. A lie. A hoax.

This is self-evident in his last post. I am glad I now have confirmation that he knows his ideas are unfounded.

Anyway, saying a theory isn't good gives and implies nothing for your own ideas.

It is rather obvious now that there was no such war. The only evidence presented for such a hypothesis was lines of impressions in dust, which, as chains himself pointed out, craters easily do. This idea by the chains person is only figment of imagination. Science Fiction.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The mere fact that he posted here in the Pseudoscience section demerits everything in his case.

I am glad I got my thoughts together. This is wonderful. Farewell, all.

::glee::

*chuckles and grins* One must listen to what the high school kids say now and then, it reflects on the education system a great deal. Not favorably in this case.

Actually it what we have been all thinking. Showing a line of craters isn't proof of anything other than there is a line of craters. But the most logical answer to why they exist is because of broken up comet impacts. His education succeeded in its mission...to learn to think logically.

Skinwalker
You are thinking, good, but you will have to come out of the box a bit farther to try and rationalize the what and how of these chains.

The word you were searching for isn't rationalize but rather justify. "Thinking out of the box" is typical pseudoscience rhetoric. "Out of the box" implies a fresh perspective, however, the pseudoscience proponent sees only what he or she wishes or hopes is true. Your perspective is interesting in that it examines alternative forces that create similar effects, but it ignores all previous cited data and ethnography.

I say ethnography for two reasons: 1) the pseudoscience culture and it's various manifestations and degrees of intensity is a fascinating topic in and of itself; and, 2) military strategy as we understand it (an alien race might think differently, but since we have not to examine, we'll use our own for reference) dictates a different usage of weaponry than you've suggested. Airburst atomic explosions are preferable in many cases to the ground/sub-surface bursts needed to create the craters you describe and, in any case, the use of atomic weaponry in such patterns is less preferable than selected, specific targets.

Your "out of box" but, in actuality biased, perspective refuses to acknowledge current models and hypotheses of comet/meteor break-up based solely on one observed event. In fact, the Ganymede photo you showed seems to be very clearly an impact of some set of objects of varied size (the middle craters are definately larger) since velocity can be assumed to be equivalent.

I point out the "pseudoscience" aspects of your claims because this is the pseudoscience section of a science message board. My expectation is that science enthusiasts, science students, and even scientists come here (sciforums) to interact with like-minded people. Therefore, the pseudoscience forum should be where we discuss pseudoscientific contentions, their lack of meritt, and the problems each contention has that make it pseudoscientific.

This type of discussion, I believe, is important so we can educate ourselves as well as the general public in our own day to day lives. Ther is far too much pseudoscience dribble being peddled to the lay person, which ultimately can interfere with the ability of science to do its job properly.

It's quite unfortunate, but this section of the sciforums seems overrun with the "believers" of many half-baked ideas. I avoid many threads since they're much farther "out of the box" than I care to comment on, and I suspect many of the other "science-minded" members here feel the same way. Perhaps this was always meant to be the venus fly-trap of the silly, but I often wish the silly would find its way back to the many, many, many boards out there for ufos, aliens, atlantis, esp, and crazy critters (bigfoot, et al) and leave the ScienceForums for those who think like, or wish to think like, scientists.

[/soapbox rant]

There are no other probable or even possible explanations that can adequately explain the formation of these crater chains by known physics.

Several have been discussed here in this very thread... you just refuse to acknowledge them.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950715.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html

Skinwalker, is this a work of deduction or just exercising your “honor roll” intellect?
Congratulations by the way, I am sure you learned everything just they way they wanted you to.

PS, I just can’t resist. You mention the Venus Flytrap, do you know where it originates?
Post an high altitude photograph of its indigenous home here if you would? I’ll give you a hint. East coast of the usa.

*This is my reiteration so that chainsy can have a fair attempt to respond without avoiding the accusation. Come on, respond without resorting to unfounded ad hom attacks.


Everyone please note that mr. chains here clearly does not take himself seriously and is putting forth nothing more than a ruse. A lie. A hoax.

This is self-evident in his last post. I am glad I now have confirmation that he knows his ideas are unfounded.

Anyway, saying a theory isn't good gives and implies nothing for your own ideas.

It is rather obvious now that there was no such war. The only evidence presented for such a hypothesis was lines of impressions in dust, which, as chains himself pointed out, craters easily do. This idea by the chains person is only figment of imagination. Science Fiction.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The mere fact that he posted here in the Pseudoscience section demerits everything in his case.

Your point is well understood. With out further comment I must get back to work. It’s been a fun vacation to stroll about these boards, I do wish they would pass a pooper scooper law here though. I leave you all with just one thought. What if I am right?
Norval

I leave you all with just one thought. What if I am right?
Norval

With a thought like that, I'd say that there isn't any intelligent life within a mile of the attachment.

Kooksville.:cool:

craterchains' other website: http://www.kingdomofyhwh.com/

,, shit eating grins, and NASA requested our research data from that site Skinwalker,, we didnt offer it,,, it was requested,, bigger shit eating grins.

ADDED, I am impressed, the bigest boat in the right area of the pic is about the size of the one I work from. but that pic is many years old and the boat I am on is not shown.

It looks like you're getting a cold shoulder in another certain forum. Listen, why are you trying to concince us of such an extravigant claim with so little evidence? You show use a line of craters and say "It must be ET". But I could just as easily say that it was a line of volcanic blasts craters due to plate techtonics. But guess what? The evidence doesn't show this at all. Same with your theory. There are no buildings, no debris of any kind around the area or anywhere else on mars. So what theory do people pick? The one that makes more sense given the evidence, and than pick the most logical conclusion. Don't try to convince logically thinking people otherwise. You just get a cold shoulder. Here and in other forums.

Volcanic craters was considered and discounted, you do not need to tell me about this one possibility again.

The Plumbbob testing done in 1957, Pascal-A, Pascal-B and Pascal-C. Pascal-A had a 5 foot cement stem, Pascal-B and Pascal-C had plugs. Pascal-B, it had a concrete plug, similar to the concrete collimator used in Pacscal-A, but this time it was placed just above the device at the bottom of the shaft and sealing the opening with a four-inch thick steel plate weighing several hundred pounds. Both Pascal-B and Pascal-C had this steel plate. When Pascal-B was detonated, Brownlee estimated that the steel plate was traveling at a velocity six times that needed to escape Earth's gravity. The mass of the collimator cylinder was at least 2 tonnes which turned to vaporized concrete striking the cover plate that propelled it off the shaft at high velocity.

Now here you have cement turning into vapor, what would happen to the steel plate if not propelled off the shaft and was closer to the placement of the bomb?....how about vapor? For more test results and the test information, see: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html#PascalB

I do not see in any of my posts that I have been anything but logical. I believe I had already in a previous post touched on the issue of character assassinate and such tactics as verbal or otherwise assaults on anothers character is not using viable scientific, mathematical or logical reasoning resulting in unusable answers to the line of questioning.

If I live in a house in BC or Norval lives on or off a boat in Tacoma, personally I do not see the relevance to the investigation.

I am sorry but all these negativistic responses are not going to discourage either Norval or myself from this line of investigation.

Some posters it seems have actually been doing a little thinking about these crater chains, when in reality it is only one of several prospects for evidence that Mar’s had a major war. We have never seen the real destructive capabilities of mankind’s own weapons fortunately. Their destructive power IS capable of vaporizing most of a city in just one missile. Besides of devastating everything for many more miles in all directions. Now imagine thousands of these devastating kinds of bombs or missiles. At one time mankind had the capacity to wipe our selves off the face of this planet 60 times over. There is stronger evidence that Mars had oceans and a thicker atmosphere. Planetary war would have vaporized and blown away much of it all. I do agree that there should be a nut or bolt or something left though. 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.
Vacation aint over till monday. *big cheesey grins*

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

The earth has very active tectonics that would wipe away a creator chain, if I'm wrong then show me a crater chain on Venus?

It is telling that crater chains are found on mars, jupiter's moons, our moon, and most other bodies in this system. Some of which have already been resurfaced.

Yet they claim that this has happened in the last hundred or so years?

And they have yet to explain the very simple question.... what possible benefit is there to laying down a straight line of weapons fire on such a large scale?

Earth is the only planet photographed where we have yet to find pictures of CS types of crater chains. Food for thought.Actually, it does... a very quick survey would tell you this. They are just mostly resurfaced.

Skinwalker
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?

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.

Persol
You may want to view the data sets and pictures of Io, a moon of Jupiter that is very volcanic in nature. The scientists even use pictures with arrows so you should be able to follow it I think?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative9.jpg

Chains:

It was touched on, but not answered-

Where are the targets of the supposed attacks?

Why are only craters left?

Where are the things blown up?

Where is the debris?

And where are these apparently intelligent beings and crafts?

And why haven't we intercepted any of their radiowaves, assuming they use them?

And of course, if there was a war, that means there would be casualties on both sides. Where is the debris of the civilization that created the "crater chains" ?

You know you cannot say erosion or weather, because the craters would be gone as well.

Answer these questions. Go ahead, give yourself some merit.

I will keep repeating these until you answer them.

If you cannot answer them, you will understand that your idea is deeply flawed. And once you understand, you can finally realize how things work, and you can finally realize how the term "evidence" is of pantamount importance in persuasion and knowledge of the universe. Until you provide some sort of proof, not something that can easily be made up without evidence, you will not be taken seriously by anyone. Even NASA.

Another thing, I will point out, yet again, your lack of eloquence and your posting this in the pseudoscience section gives your idea no merit and furthers doubt of your integrity.

Regardless, just answer the questions and stop avoiding the obvious contradictions to your idea. Give it up.

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!"

Skinwalker
Have you found the indigenous home of the Venus flytrap yet?

You didn't seriously think my analogy refered to Dionaea
muscipula did you? Because of your obvious trolling, I was refering to a special type of venus fly trap: the spurcamen productum.

Ellimist
You ask for answers, so do we all. If you are serious I will work WITH you but you must also answer my questions and provide the photographic evidence. As this thread is about the hypothetical or theoretical war on Mars and your questions are all suited to Pseudo-science so will be my answers of course. You pose seven questions and a couple suppositions in your post along with a couple assumptions. Here is my answer to your first question, which was “Where are the targets of the supposed attacks?”
In good faith I offer the following answer which answers several of your questions.
ANSWER
Apparently and quite obviously utterly destroyed. If those are craters of weapons of similar nature to atom bombs, not much would survive and our Rover I was hoping would spot something of obvious manufactured origin. It seems to have broken now.

In turn you are to track down and post an aerial picture of the indigenous home of the Venus Flytrap along with a quote of the old indian legend mentioned in the research pages you will find as to how the Carolina Bays were formed. Something Skinwalker seems incapable of doing or highly reluctant for some reason. Hope you can do better.

WCF, Please address your question in the proper thread and stop your lame attempts at cross posting threads.

Skinwalker
You make me laugh. Thank you.

craterchains (Norval,

That funny I was addressing what you said to me on this thread, though I have to admit its difficult jumping around from all your threads since they are all the same.

you said:
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.

I said:
Your the one 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!"
In doing so I only used what you said as an example of how I did not need to present evidence, only questions.

you said:WCF, Please address your question in the proper thread and stop your lame attempts at cross posting threads.
why I haven't seen a Red Herring fallacy for a while now thanks for showing it to me.

your questions are all suited to Pseudo-science so will be my answers of course

That wasn't expected.

Saying a civilization was "utterly destroyed" answers nothing. If there were buildings and constructions and whatnot, you know we would have seen something right now. Rover or no. The satellites would have.

You apparently concede the point that you have here only a hypothesis. Not a theory or explanation. You still don't have evidence. Which, I suppose, Spirit is going to obtain for you. But this goes back to how debris will have already been found by satellites alone. And this all goes back to how wish to answer scientific questions: "Where" and "Why", with vague, ignorant answers just lends your merit to the level of "hoax" or "kook" or "bullshit". Choose what you will.

Venus flytrap? Aerial view? I am not sure how that is relevant or even where it came from. The only thing I can say to this is: Mars is not the earth.

"".....kneeling at a sacrificial alter, she prayed to the Great Spirit to save the brave and her perishing people. After her invocation, a star fell to the earth, and rain soon followed. Days and days of rain quenched the fire. Great holes burned in the earth by the fire were filled, forming a great inland sea." (Algonquin Indian legend, Touring the Backroads of North Carolina's Upper Coast, p.268)

Of Lake Waccamaw

"The local Indians are known as the "People of the Falling Star," and they believed the lake was created by a falling star, perhaps a great meteorite." (Waccamaw-Siouan Indian legend, Wild Shores, Exploring the Wilderness Areas of Eastern North Carolina. p.150)"

http://www.georgehoward.net/doverbay.jpg

http://www.georgehoward.net/images/ccbay1.jpg

Bob Kobre:
"In that there has been an increasing interest in the Carolina Bays as possible impact features I felt that the reader might like to know of my own opinion on how these features came to be. Simply put, I believe that these near flat, shallow, structures were formed by terminal flare induced steam explosions of wet exposed ground."

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/firewate.html

Is that what you want?

Ellimist
Thank you for taking the time to actually check this out. In doing so you are in reality making sure of our past research into these things. You did well enough to warrant another answer. The evidence you are looking up will be required to understand the whole of the hypothesis of the war on Mars and what happened to any survivors from the loosing side. The Carolina Bays are the indigenous home to the Venus Flytrap and other endangered flora. Remember the Flytrap is a flesh eating plant also. I will respond again tomorrow with a better answer to your next question than I gave the first. But that answer still stands. Now look at the bomb damage done to Japan from very small airbursts of atomic bombs. Think of much, much bigger bombs, or even weapons of similar nature being used in the war on Mars. I will respond more tomorrow. You did quite well.

WCF, thank you for your insightfull input.

But if the war had been only in the last few hundred years, why didn't we notice our planet being bombed?

Also, the atomic bombs in Japan were not airbursts, I don't think. Far as I remember they hit the ground.

http://www.craterchains.com/ns/CarolinaBay.jpg
for the full size image use the thumbnail at this site (http://www.wilmingtontoday.com/Nature/Habitats/CarolinaBay.html)

This aerial photo shows a wider surface area, clearly showing the unique crater like shapes found in the Carolina Bays. Since there are three or more crater impressions shoulder to shoulder is why the Carolina Bays came to our attention which are close to CS chains, we do not class them as such.

Why are only craters left?
That question, and the next two along with your first question, is basically along the same line of reasoning. Would you mind if I clumped them together? In return you may add two new questions to the list. Think carefully about those two new questions and, you have the option of when you post those questions and their format.

Earlier in this thread Persol posted a picture (thank you Persol) of what is referred to as a “carpet bombing” tactic. Note what are called the Highlands of Mars and that they are heavily cratered as noted by most comments of scientists concerning them. If mars had bodies of liquid prior to this hypothetical war they would now be considered as the “low lands” where it is also noted that there are few craters. Note my response to the first question, and comments in my reply.

Why are only craters left? Where are the things blown up? Where is the debris?
Because of the unusual properties of CS chains and their great resemblance to what we know are weapons caused markings on our own planet from our wars we suspect that many singular craters may have been weapons also. Mars I highly doubt is the indigenous home to whom ever were having this hypothetical war. There are some very interesting photographs of Mars showing what may indicate destroyed designed structure. But it is obvious that little remains. It would appear that who ever may have had this war wanted Mars thoroughly destroyed. We have seen our wars do this to some areas of our own planet. Some of those areas are still uninhabitable due to residual chemicals. Fortunately we have yet to have pictures of what our own massive atomic bombs will really do as far as damage.

I am off the boat for a couple days and headed to Seattle to do some research at the library and get on the high-speed line at the office.

Hi BigBlue, again good questions.

HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI were aerial blasts:

“The atomic bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy", which was dropped on the Hiroshima City, exploded at an altitude of 580 meters above a hospital close to the present A-bomb Dome (the former Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall) at 8:15 am on 6 August 1945”.

“The atomic bomb, nicknamed "Fat Man", which was dropped on the Nagasaki City, exploded at an approximate altitude of 500 meters above a tennis court at Matsuyama-cho of Nagasaki City at 11:02 am on 9 August 1945”.
http://www.hiroshima-cdas.or.jp/HICARE/ab1e.html

Hiroshima before: http://www.craterchains.com/ns/island.gif Hiroshima after: http://www.craterchains.com/ns/island2.gif

We don’t know if earth was bombed for sure yet, that needs to be investigated further, we agree BigBlue.

If I understand your timeline right, it would have been bombed a short enough time ago that records of the attack would still exist, unless it happened away from population centres. Am I right? Or would this have been an accidental bombing, or perhaps on an ET installation on Earth and hence far from human eyes?

There are other factors about "bombing", take for instance World War II saw the heavy bombardment over Europe, admittedly the weapons were conventional, but take for instance England was hit by alot of Nazi rocketed propelled "Buzz-bombs". They weren't particularly well aimed so didn't form chains, but they did leave buildings destroyed and crater marks.

The craters now adays have now become indents in fields and are now apart of the local countryside, you don't still see them because admittedly life has continued to grow over/around them.

Although life might be on this planet to malform them to scenery, it doesn't mean that if there was no life they would not have been malformed too, for instance winds can whip sand into sandstorms that can batter away at rock surfaces and carve shapes, or smooth rough surfaces.

Ontop of all that you should also note the 0.38 G in comparison to our own planet, as a bomb dropped from the sky above would need to have "projectile" force applied to create the sorts of craters you keep mentioning.

This is why I still continue to suggest those craters are no more than a trail of fragments from a meteor breaking up, since they would land at the same applied velocity and the angle of decent would not be too far out from it's path of trajectory when fragmented.

BigBlue
Are you questioning about Mars, as this thread is about Mars or earth?

Earth, since plenty of pictures of Earth are being bandied about.

BBH
A time line has yet to be fully developed as to this hypothetical war on Mars and about our solar system. My personal opinion is that Mars seems to have been at war for many decades because of the astronomer’s notes, drawings, and pictures over those decades. It is strongly suspected that whom ever was in our solar system were also at war with each other prior to recent history and those squabble