This thread is for the purpose of discussing the craters on Mercury, whether they are of a natural occurence or the result of alien wars, as per Norvals speculations.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0108/merc2_m10_big.gif

More images of Mercury:

http://www.nineplanets.org/pxmerc.html

http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/M10/image_archive.html

Pink flying elephants.

They just really suck at missing the ground.

discussing the craters


It was crater investigation that Gene Shoemaker was headed to when he had his fatal accident.

This thread is for the purpose of discussing the craters on Mercury, whether they are of a natural occurence or the result of alien wars,...
Presuming aliens also to be a "natural occurence": Billions of years ago, the Sun was smaller/cooler, Mercury was cooler, the Universe was smaller, and the stars/other solar systems were much closer together and aliens could more easily travel to here.

As old as Mercury's craters appear to be, it's possible that they are of natural, alien bombardment technological origin.

One has to wonder what the aliens were attempting to hide from the rest of us.

What lies beneath the surface of Mercury that we are not supposed to see?

The thread title refers to crater chains, the opening statement in the thread states craters, both of which do not mention CS crater chains. So the content of this thread will not match the title nor the research as stated on craterchains.com

can someone highlight these crater chains on these mercury pics, I can't see them.

--OO--

Would these glasses help OCF?

nope they don't. :D please highlight them.

Brad Guth seems to think alien civilizations are alive and well and procreating on Venus. Maybe those aliens are using Mercury for target practice as they build galaxy class war ships and train shock troops, and some day will invade the Earth and take over this region of space.

Mercury crater chains, alien or natural.
QUOTED “This thread is for the purpose of discussing the craters on Mercury, whether they are of a natural occurence or the result of alien wars, as per Norvals speculations.”

Well to include all the craters on Mercury is a good idea. As CS types of crater chains have this unique inline and general shoulder to shoulder spacing regardless of size gives reason for considering they may have been caused by alien intelligence during a war. This would of course give rise to consideration of ALL CRATERS as to whether or not they are truly ALL formed by impacts. Or, weapons? :D

:m:

so any two craters that happen to be by each other are crater chains?

Its worse then that. Because a crater looks like a crater an alien must have created it.

In the style of "Bill and Ted"...

Bill:
Dude, We'll have to remember to come back later, before this all began and remember to make the crater chains.

Ted:
What will we use?

Bill:
What makes craters?!? I know, lets go into the future and find some scientists to help in making an atmosphere for the planets through the use of exploding giant bombs.

Ted:
Well we must have failed Bill, they don't have atomspheres.

Bill:
Well how else are we goning to make craters?

Ted:
Could just build a big catapult and shoot asteroids from the outerrim at planets.

Bill:
Dude that would be a most excellent intergalactic sport, Planet pitting with catapulted asteroids it will make a most bodacious edition to our bands album cover.

Ted: Excellent!
(Album cover depicted as Led Zeppelins "corncircle cover" but with Craterchains)

================
In all the above is more likely to be real, even though the characters are complete fiction.

And your the best they could come up with as a moderator, hopefully there are some people in this world with more common sense and excerise their intelligence than your example.

And your the best they could come up with as a moderator, hopefully there are some people in this world with more common sense and excerise their intelligence than your example.

Wow, just wow, your that delusional not to see how his example makes better sense then your theory! I mean come on aliens just decided to drop unguided bombs, what as there motivation? Why could they not use guided bombs and save ammo???

Bombs? Guided bombs?

Why not sorta-guided rocks?

Aliens can shepherd asteroids and deliver a shotgun blast to any planet they wish.

Sorta-guided rocks?

Why not just rocks?

Ah, I see th problem... because if the asteroids that aliens sent broke up like this, it could just as easily be millions of years of asteroid strikes. This doesn't fit into the delusion very well, and its therefore ignored.

Must have been a war between them and these demons on mars:

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/~phib/images/doom/anim/cybr1.gif

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/~phib/images/doom/anim/boss1.gif

Oh no... not the dreaded RED Xs!!!!!

red x?

I like the "doom" theory on crater chains very nice :D

The Doom Legacy Mod preportion to this thread has been shifted here:
Doom Legacy Mod (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41031)

As for a response to FieryIce, The reason for the "comic Relief" is purely because I and I'm sure others become bored over the constant Rhetoric where you don't acknowledge facts and dream up some kooky varient for a natural occurance.

I was mearly pointing out in a humourous way that it might not be aliens, it might be someone that travels back in time just to make the craters so they can laugh at you developing "intelligent patterns" from their crater run, or for that matter Catapulting asteroids.

Your Conspiracy theory is like saying the sun and the moon move by the hand of some super-enlightened being, when in reality it just doesn't work like that.

first of all, i don't even see any crater chains, and if there are, I'll be anything it's entirely circumstantial. first of all, if alien inteligence existed that could travel interstellar distances (or even interplanetary, we'll pretend martians had a space program), i think they'd be able to aim way better than to just chuck a bunch of rocks in a spread pattern on a large portion of planetary surface. For crying out loud, WE aim better than that with cruise missiles and artilery!!! I find it hard to believe that aliens would be so sophisticated to travel to other planets, only to destroy whatever was on it with a "shotgun blast" of asteroids

I can clearly understand why weedeaterguys little green square hasnt changed as yet.

FOCL

You just wish your little green square was that big.

Don't be jealous.

OMG, is this serious? Some people are just desparate to find silly things to believe in :rolleyes: .

Hans

Actually Monsieur Kobenhavn, when you are finished catching up with what is really going on, then yes, OMG statement does apply.
:D

Yes MRC, aliens are fighting a galactic war, and Mars was the ultimate victim. Just look at all the craters on it!
:D

Oh, then who made the ones on the Moon?

Hans :bugeye:

Shhhssss..... that's the OTHER aliens. We aren't supposed to know about 'them'.

Oh, wait.... it's all just do to big heavy rocks crashing into planetoids.

While Persol wants to talk about alien wars, obviously wanting of logical reasoning is also apparent. That some can’t seem to see the CS types of chained craters we recommend you try searching the relative information and get the known scientists view points about them and where they are on Mercury as we have.

The reasoning that “we” now go on is that with so many known CS types of crater chains on our moon alone blows the probability curve of them ever being formed by a broken up space rock as ludicrous.

What we are looking for now in all of these photos that shows CS types of crater chains are where, how many, and what sizes.

Please not that there are no craters recognized as CS type. Specifically because other people found these and comment on these before you, and it is assine to name them after yourselves.
so many known CS types of crater chains on our moon alone blows the probability curve of them ever being formed by a broken up space rock as ludicrousWhy? You have yet to show us any serious statistical analysis. A 'dice don't line up when I drop them' comment is not a serious statistical analysis.

Please "note" that Persol fails to note there are differences in the crater chain formations. We named the types of crater chains that are aligned in certain ways "CS" (Cunningham / Smart) types. Thus it can be understood (by most intelligent beings) what we are talking about when we discuss them.

Persol lies when saying we have done no statistical analyses of them. If it was good enough for NASA and other scientific organizations one would think that it should be good enough for one such as Persol's ilk and like. Guess not. One must wonder why that is?

Persol lies when saying we have done no statistical analyses of them. Please oh mighty lord of bullshit, grace us with your analysis.

Please "note" that Persol fails to note there are differences in the crater chain formations. We named the types of crater chains that are aligned in certain ways "CS" (Cunningham / Smart) types. Thus it can be understood (by most intelligent beings) what we are talking about when we discuss them.

Persol lies when saying we have done no statistical analyses of them. If it was good enough for NASA and other scientific organizations one would think that it should be good enough for one such as Persol's ilk and like. Guess not.
One must wonder why that is?


Simply stated, Persol is an excellent example of STDD, Same Tactic Different Day with a touch of total incompetence or as it is formally called Incompetence Syndrome.

His STDD, IS is showing.

Perhaps you would like to show us your fabled analysis then?

It makes sense to keep calling the two of you liars when the two of you continue to lie.

We named the types of crater chains that are aligned in certain ways "CS" (Cunningham / Smart) types.

But it is unlikely that name has any recognition other than on your website.

I have a hunch it plays like this:

CS originally starts as asking NASA, "Do you think its possible that aliens could draw shapes in a planets surface to attempt to communicate?", NASA *MIGHT* have responded, "Sure, why not!" but meant, sure it's possible but its extremely unlikely.

Then our two intrepid CS (or BS) crater chain enthusiasts, start to rethink their thoughts on what could occur... Perhaps it's a message ... perhaps the planet was destroyed... an ancient civilization... war of two sides.... why are we still here? we must have been on the winning side ?!?....

It now means that they take all their most recent analysis and apply NASA's original "Sure, why not!" at the end.

However we *hopefully* will know the answer if those nice people at NASA respond to the e-mail I just sent in regards to this. I know it could be unlikely that its answered because of the nature of the e-mail however if they have a few spare minutes someone might answer to set the record straight about any relationship between NASA and CS crater chains.

Yes, I am sure they will respond. Care to post a copy of that email you sent in its entirety Stryder?

Yes, I am sure they will respond. Care to post a copy of that email you sent in its entirety Stryder?Care to post a copy of your response from NASA?

I will if responded to post both, if an actual response doesn't appear then theres no real point placing the e-mail I wrote here since it would be one way dilect that was treated as "Spam". However if they do respond, I will place both into the thread to validate NASA's stance on CS Craterchains.

I hope its not just me; but doesn't the random and haphazard bombing of planet in this manner seem rather...inefficient...and a waste of resources?

Fill me in please, since I am not really all that familiar with your theory.

Did aliens just lob asteroids at a potential target with a cosmic potato gun, or was there some actual "bomb" invloved...and if so, since the impact craters still exist, wouldn't there be some kind of trace evidence remaining within the crater or the ejected debris?

Were/are they trying to hide something...because they obviously did a half ass job of erasing the evidence.

I hope its not just me; but doesn't the random and haphazard bombing of planet in this manner seem rather...inefficient...and a waste of resources?I think that over a hundred posts have said this to them....

Persol, STDD

FieryIce, GSACYFF.

Those of small imaginations need to expand upon the immensity of OUR own weapons and ships of war that have evolved in a relative short period of time. Inventiveness of weaponry and delivery systems can only advance as fast as our manufacturing capability. Think of the capability of several nearby solar systems of construction workers building ships of war.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/ganychain_gal.jpg
Answer me this. Can anyone guess at what the yeld of weaponry sized nuclear bombs would have been used on this 13 strike pattern? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html

BS noval,

I would have to say a weapon of very limited guidance and crude imprecise explosive yelled. A sign of a alien race with weapon systems inferior to our own in many qualities.

FOCLMFAO at the OCF.

I would love to see any of this worlds military deliver such a strike like it from here on our own moon. :D

Norval,
The nasa link you provided has a reasonable explanation of how those craters could have been created.
Why wasn't it a comet containing several pieces?

BS Noval,

At least our weapons are more precise and better guided.

>>>>It was crater investigation that Gene Shoemaker was headed to when he had his fatal accident.

yes, in the northern territory. and speaking of shoemaker, and levy, wasn't that a nice crater chain that comet made on jupiter....if it had a surface that is.

:-)

Why do some of the craters have a surface area 5 time larger then the smallest. Would this not require 16-32 time more power for the larger craters then the smallest. A natural event would best describe the discrepancy.

What is of particular interest in that image Norval posted is the patterned variability. The crater chain from left to right has 3 craters the same size, 3 slightly larger, the middle crater the largest, 3 craters slightly smaller than the middle one, then finally 3 craters the same size as the first three.

ooooooooooooo

This illustrates that the delivery system (mechanism) for this crater chain can vary the scale of the crater to match the shouldering crater and shoulder a larger or smaller crater. Now that is precision, unmatched by mechanisms devised by any country or science here on earth. Also no country or science here on earth has ever made a single crater the size of even one of these craters, let alone a crater one mile in size, when these crater chains run for miles and miles.

Compare the 13-strike crater chain to this crater chain where all the craters are shoulder to shoulder and the same size, illustrating unprecedented precision. One crater shoulders the next without collapsing the shoulder and making a trench.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/02281997_browse.jpg http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9712/ganycirc_gal.jpg
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/022897.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971209.html

Shoemaker-levy 9 doesn’t even enter into comparison so you might as well shove the Shoemaker-levy losenger in your pocket to suck on it later on your own time.
:D

And what exactly were the aliens making lines of craters for? If they were hitting targets would they not simple launch a guided weapon that would precisely hit the target in one impact, instead of carpet-bombing an area? Did they lack the basic guidance technology? Even in that picture I see imprecision in the line and explosive yield.

If this was the remains of alien weapon system then why are crater chains so varied in pattern, precision and volume all over the solar system?

Just note that impact craters usually mean the generation of elevated sides since not all the force from an impact is kicked up and out of the hole. The means when you look carefully at the Craters put forwards by Norval and FieryIce actually lack impact signs, suggesting a pithole where loose material has fallen into a crevis either generated by cooling lava tubes of plate-tectonic alteration.

Sorry Stryder, scientists and I, do disagree with you. These are either impact, or explosions. Vastly larger war craft would have vastly larger automatic weapons and fire control systems to combat vastly larger war craft.

Duh?

Collapsed pit chain. FOCLMAO

BS Noval,

Appeal to Authority: just because you and some "scientists" agree does not mean its correct. You have to prove why its not a clasped chasm.

Dont you people understand that if Shoemaker-levy hit a body just minuets or hours after breaking up it would have produced a "CS" impact chain. Very simple to understand.
for this crater chain can vary the scale of the crater to match the shouldering crater and shoulder a larger or smaller crater. Now that is precision, unmatched by mechanisms devised by any country or science here on earth
Come now this is a stretch to say the least. In Novas image there is much overlap. The larger crater shows two peaks that could be the result of two impacts. Larger impacts would also have obliterated any evidence of smaller impacts. The fith and sixth overlap by more then 50% while the last one has no overlap. Even in the images you post the overlap is no where near as precise as you claim. From the left it starts with some small overlap then spaces out so that the line become disconnected with a space about half the diameter of the adjacent craters. And then towards the end the overlap slowly increases. The is absolutely no evidence for your claim that the impacts are spaced to provide shoulder to shoulder overlap.
As for earth not being able to do this. Talk to some miners who use explosives to massage the ground in ways that make you CS chains look like primitive scratches. Talk to the armed forces who could create any pattern the wanted just by clicking on the map where they want the bomb to go, and how big to make the crater. Talk to people who bring down building using explosives.

Blindman
As for earth not being able to do this. Talk to some miners who use explosives to massage the ground in ways that make you CS chains look like primitive scratches. Talk to the armed forces who could create any pattern the wanted just by clicking on the map where they want the bomb to go, and how big to make the crater. Talk to people who bring down building using explosives.

Been there, done that. THAT is WHY we can recognize these as caused by intelligence. You only THINK we can duplicate this kind of accuracy. NOT. And, military types only WISH they could duplicate this kind of strike Keep tossing a hand full of gravel till you are convinced it will eventually form a CS type of crater chain.

But, don’t hold your breath.

Been there, done that.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....sure. You know more about explosive yelds than I know about 16th century hair styles. If you had any evidence by now you would have shown it. Instead you give the same old bullshit answer over and over again that we're the ones close minded, that "analysis" was done, that nasa "agrees" with you and that none of us here know jack. Impacts of various yields would give the results you see. "Just look at plowshare" as you've said in the past but those are buried nukes. Just look at this link http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

If those "aliens" had any smarts they would know the most effective blast is an airburst.

And, military types only WISH they could duplicate this kind of strike

Why can't they? ICBMs are airbursts so it doesn't matter but laser guided bombs or GPS guided JDAM/JSOWs are accurate to within a few feet. So according to your theory the US military has BETTER accuracy then your so-called "aliens".

You're full of more bullshit then all of the politicians in DC so you're pretty much overflowing.

You have never had any experience with guided munitions. Accuracy to less then a meter. Calculating the crater size is very easy to do when you know the yield, depth and shape. We have interceptors that can strike a ballistic missile 100K up.
A good friend of works in the mining industry laying out drilling holes for blasting. By varying the timing of the detonations he can move the dirt where ever he needs is. If he had to use high yield atomic weapons he reckons he could easily create a chain of craters with perfect alinement. He also pointed out that for nuclear explosions to create deep crates like those seen in the crater chains they would have to be buried deep underground, at about 2-3times the depth of the crater. Nukes release radiant energy, while conventional explosives produce energy in the form of and expanding shockwave of gas. Nukes do not produce significant craters when detonated at ground level while conventional explosives can. He also pointed out that craters produce by conventional and nukes do no leave a central peek and have relatively shallow slopes, while impact craters leave a peek and have very steep walls. This is because large impacts penetrate deep into the surface. A crater with a diameter of about 150K would have created a hole about 60km deep filled with vaporized rock which would quickly condense and fill the hole. My friend is without doubt that the images of CS craters chains where produce by fast moving heavy objects not explosives, ether chemical or nukes.
By the way it is easy to throw a hand full of gravel. Hold the gravel in your hand closing all but the index finger then throw letting the gravel come out of your palm along the finger. Using this technique you can constantly generate lines of impact. You must remember that when a comet breaks up it is due to tidal forces. Tidal forces stretch along one direction (direction of gravity). Just as when you stretch a rubber band it becomes long and thin. Then length expands while the width contracts. You may have heard of the most extreme case of this, called spaghettification as you come to close to a black hole. Space in a gravity field is stretched and squeezed. Thus you get a long line from a pile of stones.
There is also a boundary for each rubble pile around each planet that is the point where the tidal forces are greater then the bonding strength. The further a object travels inside this boundary the greater the rate of separation. If an object just skims this boundary it will separate very slowly producing CS crater chains.

Hold the gravel in your hand closing all but the index finger then throw letting the gravel come out of your palm along the finger. Using this technique you can constantly generate lines of impact.

Thank you. I told them this like a year ago and they don't get the fact that you can toss it this way. Talk about dense.

Blackholesun,
I'm just going to mention not getting to abusive, since it's not needed on the board.
Although your sentiments are correct and I think even the board missed you for the duration you've been away. (Guess you got bored of the same stuff being mentioned over and over again).

I know I'm not suppose to embark on personal attacks, however it can be said that mine (and many others) interpretation of Norvals theory suggest that it's made to be completely bogus for the need of attention seeking. The absurd suggestions and the lack of evidence to me is proof enough that what ever suggested isn't true.

I'm not going to bother repeating the evidence from the against list since it's a long list and it covered all the above, in fact I wonder why there is still any movement in conversation since theres the two sides of the coin, the ones that know it's completely inaccurate and the others that are just out for attention and propagation of their idea for what ever sub-defined reasoning.

In conclusion: Personally I would just close all topics on this subject, however since I'm playing by moderation rules I leave it open for people to continue to discuss. (However I think the theory of the "Cyclic Universe (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html)" wasn't created to suggest the continued merry-go-round effect of the overall topics repetition)

Ok stryder...I cut down on the personal attacks just for you :)

You nailed it why I took a hiatus thought. I'll be around, but just not as much. So look out kooks!!

What is of particular interest in that image Norval posted is the patterned variability. The crater chain from left to right has 3 craters the same size, 3 slightly larger, the middle crater the largest, 3 craters slightly smaller than the middle one, then finally 3 craters the same size as the first three.

ooooooooooooo

This illustrates that the delivery system (mechanism) for this crater chain can vary the scale of the crater to match the shouldering crater and shoulder a larger or smaller crater. Now that is precision, unmatched by mechanisms devised by any country or science here on earth. Also no country or science here on earth has ever made a single crater the size of even one of these craters, let alone a crater one mile in size, when these crater chains run for miles and miles.

Compare the 13-strike crater chain to this crater chain where all the craters are shoulder to shoulder and the same size, illustrating unprecedented precision. One crater shoulders the next without collapsing the shoulder and making a trench.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/02281997_browse.jpg http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9712/ganycirc_gal.jpg
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/022897.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971209.html

Shoemaker-levy 9 doesn’t even enter into comparison so you might as well shove the Shoemaker-levy losenger in your pocket to suck on it later on your own time.
:D

I will reiterate, no country or science here on earth has ever made a single crater the size of even one of these craters, let alone a crater one mile in size, now that is unprecedented precision.

Precision and yield are very different things! Sure the holes are big but if you look closely they are not precisely in a line nor is each hole aligned with the other perfectly, nor are the craters all the same size, this is called “imprecision”

I will reiterate, no country or science here on earth has ever made a single crater the size of even one of these craters, let alone a crater one mile in size, now that is unprecedented precision.But oddly enough rocks falling from the sky HAVE made craters this size, have been seen to do so and have been simulated to do so. You have no valid argument against the comet chain answer, but instead continue to use your very false 'straight lines are not natural' way of thinking.

>>>>I will reiterate, no country or science here on earth has ever made a single crater the size of even one of these craters, let alone a crater one mile in size, now that is unprecedented precision.

i can't wait til us earthlings reach the same level technology as these aliens then we too can bomb the crap outta the moon or mercury.

But oddly enough rocks falling from the sky HAVE made craters this size, have been seen to do so and have been simulated to do so.

NO Persol, that is a lie.
There has been no rocks fall from the sky that have made craters this size or a mile in diameter. The computer simulator programs, the programmers have admitted their programs will not replicate crater chains.
Quote for all of us just who has ever seen a rock fall from the sky and make a mile wide crater. Quote to all of us just where this imaginary crater is.

Boris2, that is somewhat the point, the only planetary body in our solar system that would be of any interest as a target would be Earth; the moon or mercury already look like crap.

there are quite a few >1.6km wide impact craters on earth. don't know if anyone saw any of them though

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html

Boris2, read Persol's post again.

>>>>There has been no rocks fall from the sky that have made craters this size or a mile in diameter.

i was responding to this.

There are craters, what makes you so very sure they are "impact" type?

>>>>There are craters, what makes you so very sure they are "impact" type?

william of occams razor.

FOCLMFAO,,, and that is why we firmly reply that CS crater chains are not natural, but have been made by intelligence. Thank you.

[b] The computer simulator programs, the programmers have admitted their programs will not replicate crater chains.[/quote]Yeah, reference please... cause your talking out your ass again.
There has been no rocks fall from the sky that have made craters this size or a mile in diameter.So you don't count the visible ones all over everything in the solar system (You claimed the lined up craters where from aliens, now you're saying they all are?) and the lunar impacts of 1953 and the impacts of Jupiter?

>>>>and that is why we firmly reply that CS crater chains are not natural, but have been made by intelligence

so aliens are a simpler explanation than asteroids? care to explain how you come to this conclusion?

Google "crater chains" or as posted before http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html

Hehe...same old bullshit fire. Divert from the quetion at hand. You show us the same images and expect us to believe that yours is the simplest conclusion...all because of a couple of impact lines! Because, incredibly, the simplest explanation for you is warmongering aliens that have shitty weapontry who seem to enjoy shooting random planets with random bursts of fire.

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

1: Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).


Hmmmmm gravitational forces on a comet..........or aliens with bloodlust.

Your website twists what Occam's Razor means to fit what YOU want it to.

There are craters, what makes you so very sure they are "impact" type?

Craterchains, do you believe that all craters on Earth (except volcanic ones, obviously) are artificial?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_quakes_041011.html

Well what do you know. The area that many of us were calling a sinkhole filled region that fire and crazychains was calling a war zone look to be pits after all....due to similar evidence (look up that word sometime guys) for such areas in Iceland. Their site doesn't give the area justice. The areas they question are very near a dormant volcano...and there still could be some seismic activity still there.

http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html

Kewl Blackhole, thanks for the link, this image of Iceland illustrates how pits chains along an earthquake fault does not compare to shoulder to shoulder CS crater chains.
:D

http://www.space.com/images/041011_marsquake_iceland_02.jpg
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=041011_marsquake_iceland_02.jp g&cap=Pit+chains+in+Iceland%2C+created+by+a+known+ea rthquake+fault%2C+have+the+same+characteristics+as +those+on+Mars.+Credit+and+%A9%3A+GSA

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/02281997_full.jpg
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/022897.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Sedan3.jpg
Here is a nice picture.. A crater created by a nuke.. 104kt baby nuke. The crater,1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep, looks nothing like your crater chains. Note the even slope and lack of a central peek
Below.. how it looks today.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Sedancrater2.jpg

Imagine the size of the crater if we used one of the big ones, 100mt. Thats close to 1000 times more energy then that of the one that created the above crater. With some simple math humans could have created a crater 31times as big. Thats 39,000f (12km) wide by about 9,920f (3km) deep using tech thats 40years old. Eat your shorts aliens crater chain freaks.

Isn't Sedan crater kewl, but why didn't you pick the image that shows what the center looks like? The center does have a center impression but not a nipple.

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

You forgot to mention this test was subsurface 635 feet and:
17:00 6 July 1962 (GMT)
Up to a point, the more deeply buried an explosive charge is, the larger the crater it will make. Beyond this point much of the material is thrown with insufficient force to clear the crater and falls back in, reducing the final size. At the optimal crater depth though quite a lot of material actually ends up back in the crater bottom...Sedan was detonated at what was estimated to be the optimal crater depth in alluvial soil. 12 million tons of soil and rock were lifted into the air, 8 million tons of it falling outside the crater. The final crater was 1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep. The force of the detonation released seismic energy equivalent to an earthquake magnitude of 4.75 on the Richter Scale. The device used was similar to that used in Dominic Bluestone and Swanee and was thus a variant of the W-56 high yield missile warhead. The device had a fusion yield of 70%. The Sedan device had a diameter of 17.1 inches, a length of 38 inches, and a weight of 467.9 lb.

Incrementally increasing the yeild size does not necessarily create incrementally larger craters.

Yes that is correct, the rule is generally you need 4time as much power to create a crater twice the size, 9times more power for a hole 3times as big and so on. So for a bomb that is 1000times as big the crater will be about 31 times as big. So with the biggest nuke ever made you will be able to create a hole 12km across.

This big bomb was created in 1961 by the Russians, from concept to detonation in 14weeks. Big bombs don't have much of a tactical application as a few smaller bombs could do the same damage as the big one. This is why it was the biggest bomb ever made. This is not to say it is not the biggest bomb designed, yields of 1000mt to 10000mt could have been created with the same technology and with 40years of experience, yields of 100000mt are well within human capabilities. Not that anyone would want to make such an evil device.

To say humans don't have the techno skills to produce big holes in the ground is wrong.

Nukes can produce a wide variety of craters for the same yield. A bomb above the surface ,100m or more for a 10kt nuke, produce no craters, on or near the surface they produce shallow concave craters, deeper and you get the deep conical craters, even deeper still and you get subsidence craters, which are shallow concave craters characterized by concentric circles and absence of ejecta. It is clear that energy weapon like A-bombs and H-bombs do not produce craters that look anything like the craters in the crater chain images. The only way to produce craters like this is via kinetic impact. Alien could not have produce these craters unless they threw very large rocks at each other at great speeds. :bugeye:

Keep the faith because Im sure you will be able in invent something that will over come all of these problems. For most of us the simple process of tidally disrupted objects creating crater chains is very sound. :cool:

craterchains...................... //disgust
they see aliens everywhere

p.s. mod is free to delete this post, but my stance is that we have already enough (rightfully locked) threads discussing craterchains

Tactical application for large nukes is purely to generate more nuclear material.
I suggested this some time back during French Nuclear tests near Moruroa and Fangataufa.

Basically the detonation of a nuke in a particular mineral deposit could generate alot of material that can be used to fuel power stations or potentially build weapons.

I think that the process of controlled reaction is the best way to produce nuclear material. The Russian big bomb was the cleanest nuke ever. They sacrificed 50% yield for a clean burn. 96% of the power came from fusion. They did this by replacing the 3rd stage burn (compression stage to ignite fusion materials) with lead instead of uranium.. The 100mt Russian bomb, down sized to 50mt, would not have produce much fission material.

HBombs are the biggest and ironically the cleanest.

If you don't have the infrastructure to produce fission products a slow burn nuke would be the best. It would be a spit, bubble, and boil alchemy session.

Yet I'm of to look into nuke to produce nukes, maybe the high temps of Hbombs could produce materials that could then be mined.

As far as the motive to produce a 100mt bomb, political.

BTW the big one also killed 3 people when their house collapsed from the shock wave 100km (or was that 250km) away.

I guess this is what Craterchains are about:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/198177

Okay admittedly this is a game that shoots rockets at a planet you have to defend, however perhaps it's near the reality suggested by Norval.

I must admit, Stryder your childishness is showing.
What? nothing more creative on the agenda that day?
STDD

Actually FieryIce, there was no Tactic... well other than pressing spacebar down to launch your rolly-polly into a higher orbit. So the STDD is being proven to just be the SSED.

It's not exactly about "childishness" either, I thought you would of liked it for people to see the computer simulation you guys used to come up with your theory.

[quote]the computer simulation you guys used to come up with your theory[/quote[Too much credit me thinks.

the computer simulation you guys used to come up with your theoryToo much credit me thinks.

Basically the detonation of a nuke in a particular mineral deposit could generate alot of material that can be used to fuel power stations or potentially build weapons.

No it couldn't, you're making things up again Stryder.

Weapons grade material and nuclear fuels ARE NOT created in the manner you describe. But if you have a credible source that claims they are, feel free to link.

Not quite right.. An atomic bomb produces a host of radioactive isotopes. If a bomb where to be detonated in an uranium rich ore body a very small proportion of the uranium in the ore would be converted to plutonium , and apart from running a nuclear power plant its the only other way to create plutonium. The amount created is way to small to make it practical.

Not quite right.. An atomic bomb produces a host of radioactive isotopes. If a bomb where to be detonated in an uranium rich ore body


Tell me how you think it's done. Nuclear fuel is U235. Naturally ocurring Uranium in Uranium ore is just 0.2% of the mass of mined rock, and only 1% of that Uranium is U235, 99% of the Uranium metal is U238.

So , you nuke a mineshaft containing nuclear ore, ... and what happens? Useless, heavier U238 turns in to lighter U235 when you bombard it with neutrons does it?

Or, you turn your mine into a stinking pile of fission products.

A far more efficient way to produce nuclear fuel and weapons grade material, is to use Plutonium, and a fast breeder reactor.

So , you nuke a mineshaft containing nuclear ore, ... and what happens? Useless, heavier U238 turns in to lighter U235 when you bombard it with neutrons does it?
Plutonium is created from uranium. When uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 which ultimately decays to plutonium-239. The amount produced in the ore would be very small, and not worth the effort.

Yeah, Plutonium is created from Uranium, but NOT by exposing uranium to thermonuclear detonation! There's no way in hell nuking uranium ore is going to yield anything worthwhile, end of story. Stryder makes shit up as he goes along, without a care for the technical, practical, or factual. He even twists the meanings of words, and won't admit defeat when presented with contradictoy evidence several times over, so don't leap to his defense so readily.

Ain’t it a bitch, Phloger, I have to agree with you about Stryder.

Talk about pure lineal thinking with absolutely no lateral capacity whatsoever.

Phlog, Go read a physics book about "Fission".

I'm not going to argue at what quantity that material could be generated, afterall any forms of electron shifts mean that one higher state is created at the expense of a lower state. Admittedly the state changes aren't in great quantities, but then you could question at what quantities the materials are found normally and potentially realise that "enrichment" is a possible way of increasing the amount.

It's not a made up process, in fact the entire process that admittedly I theorised was based on the historic creation of Einsteinium which isn't the greatest element, however it's as mentioned a historic element.

(Original texts explain how the generation of the element was from an electron shift from one element to another element, lessening one and increasing the other for a short duration of time, due to its unstable nature.)

So don't bother blowing your top about something so petty.

Electrons have nothing to do with the production of one element from the transmutation of anothing. At the nuclear level (not chemical level where the electron become important in chemical reactions). If you want to go from uranium to plutonium you need to facilitate a reaction that will lead to the capture of protons and neutrons in the material and up its status to a higher element in the table. Remember, an increase or decrease of neutrons in an element creates different isotopes and is much more common. An increase or decrease in protons (along with a subsequent increase or decrease in neutrons) will create different elements. Radioactive decay or visa versa forced nucleonic impacts will transmute elements into other elements. For example radioactive uranium decays into an isotope of lead given enough time.

To reiterate: the electron is not responsible for nuclear (and by nuclear I mean the nucleus) reactions.

As I mentioned the electron shift was depicted in one text, although I know what you mean Blackholesun as there was that alchemy experiment that converted gold to lead through the use of a television and a freezer. This meant the reaction which generated a higher atomic number (ergo electrons) is actually down to the photon bombardment of the metal and the entanglement caused by it's cooling (slowing).

I have also read an article on Neutron Rays, which are basically rays generated for the use in decaying certain materials that fire short lived Neutrons. I only mention this to explain that the generation of the Ray is just through equipment and energy and that the Neutron's existance prior was just a different energy state. Therefore for a reaction to occur it just requires the basis of energy, which is where the electron came into the original topic from it's collisive nature.

[Btw this is to the guys that just love to argue. What I have written here is IMOO, however if I am truly wrong about something do me a favour and supply a credible source stating the reality not to raise your own esteme to prove me wrong in something but to benefit my understand and those that read these posts in an attempt to learn about either general philosophies or physics.]

First off atomic number is the number of protrons. It is not the number of electrons. Again electrons have nothing to do with nuclear reactions that you specify. An atom can have no electrons (ions) and is still consided belonging to that element or it can have more electrons in its outer shells can be charged.

Alchemy and freezers huh? Provide the link; that's all I'll say.

Do you know what neutrons are? A "ray" of neutrons are just a beam of neutrons created from a sustained nuclear reaction (ie a particle accelerator firing ions into beryillium for example) that has filtered everything else away with energy specific barriers and magnets.

So whereever you are getting your info from please get it elsewhere or provide a credible link to prove me wrong.

Since Stryder in its infinite wisdom locked the Titan thread, the picture goes here then.

In the larger jpg format of this image that is offered to view by the gods at NASA, there are sites on Titan that are highly suspect to show CS Crater Chains, for instance the bottom left corner.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/browse/PIA06990.jpg
PIA06990: Titan Vs. Mars (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA06990)

Blackholesun,
Firstly as for a link to the alchemy experiment, I don't think there is one. It was actually an experiment on a program of the BBC's called "It will never work". It was suggested in one persons search that the title of such a program was different however from my memory on it, it was that program.

My basic assumption of atomics is this:
# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can.
# An added electron to an orbit of an atom increases a gravimetric pull upon the Nucleus and Proton causing an Oscillation, this is what changes the supposed Proton numbers.
(The latter is suggested from an explaination of "Schrodingers Cat" and a Particle-Waveform duality principle, where oscillation generates a waveform from a particle due to it's multiple positioning due to oscillation.)

My point here was that a Neutron Ray is like the generation of such an oscillation through Neutrons, As you suggest it does involve the same mechanics as you state with the particle accelerator, but the acceleration is used to cause a higher oscillation of waveforms that are then generated into the Ray.

Since Stryder in its infinite wisdom locked the Titan thread, the picture goes here then.
oooooo wow... I'm speechless! I see, I see! :eek:
say, do you see craterchains in the cookies you eat too?

However we *hopefully* will know the answer if those nice people at NASA respond to the e-mail I just sent in regards to this. I know it could be unlikely that its answered because of the nature of the e-mail however if they have a few spare minutes someone might answer to set the record straight about any relationship between NASA and CS crater chains.

Stryder, did you ever get a response from NASA? Did you just fill out a form on their web site that is an email to their webmaster?

Why not email the Department of Defense directly to get a more prompt response?

My basic assumption of atomics is this:
# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can.

Wrong I'm afraid, a process called 'K electron capture' means that protons combine with an electron, and become a neutron. The mass number of the atom in question remains the same, but it's atomic number drops by one, so protons do shift from one state to another, from being charged, to being neutral.

# An added electron to an orbit of an atom increases a gravimetric pull upon the Nucleus and Proton causing an Oscillation, this is what changes the supposed Proton numbers.
(The latter is suggested from an explaination of "Schrodingers Cat" and a Particle-Waveform duality principle, where oscillation generates a waveform from a particle due to it's multiple positioning due to oscillation.)

Pseudo babble! You can't just go adding electrons into orbits, and charge, and gravity are so far unrelated. Unless you're working on a proof for the GUT, of course.

My point here was that a Neutron Ray ... are then generated into the Ray.

A neutron ray? How is a collimated beam of neutrons made please?

The NASA query was never responded to, but I didn't expect they would for the nature of what it entailed. The last thing they would be doing is conversating about the Reality of whether your craterchain theorum was discussed with them, especially since I don't know who your "contact" was. If you named a contact it would be far easier to attempt to contact them.

As for my atomic explaination. As I mentioned previously I can and will probably be wrong, however it is the model that I have that admittedly is GUT based, as contested as that is.

The aspect of the Neutron Ray wasn't so much about it's creation or use, but the life expectancy of a Neutron was what I was really looking at, at the time. Neutron's that aren't in a relationship with particles "die". The reason I was on about electrons shifting from one atom to another under specific conditions (notibly a nuclear blast from my reference) is because that Einsteinium was an "unstable" element that reverted to a different element due to its instability, and of course the nature of chain reactions within atomics (Which are caused from the electron shifts).

I'll just have to get hold of a few more books, since Apparently the ones I have are contested so.

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html

Beta decay is an example of electrons in nuclear reactions but they don't initiate or dictate how the reaction starts. Electrons deal with oxidation and chemical reactions.

"My point here was that a Neutron Ray is like the generation of such an oscillation through Neutrons, As you suggest it does involve the same mechanics as you state with the particle accelerator, but the acceleration is used to cause a higher oscillation of waveforms that are then generated into the Ray."

No. A particle accelerator accelerates subatomic matter or ions into each other or a into a static sample. The collisions are few and far between with the nucleus but given the number of ions or subatomic particles in the beam you really don't have to wait long. If you look at the fragments thrown off you'll see that even though some is beta radiation, most is neutrons and ion fragments due to proton or neutron absorptions.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/nucl/node5.html

"# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can."

Notice the word atomic state. Electrons jump energy levels but you don't see atoms splitting because of it.

"Neutron's that aren't in a relationship with particles "die"."

So? They have a half life just like everything else. It's at 15 minutes.

phlogistician you can get a beam of neutrons if you use a reaction that is a high neutron producer. For example if you collide Lithium 7 with protrons you get Beryllium 7 and neutrons as byproducts. If you set up the collisions right so that the incidence angle of the resulting neutron release is pointed toward your experiments you can use metal foils and magnetic fields to strip away highly energetic particles and charged particles. What is left is a beam of neutrons..but of course they are non-steerable.

phlogistician you can get a beam of neutrons if you use a reaction that is a high neutron producer. ....but of course they are non-steerable.

Thanks, but I wanted Stryder to explain, because I think his explanation would have have top comedy value. Given that he doesn't understand simple physics like conservative energy fields, his thoughts on atomic physics should be a hoot.

The context in which he was talking, using terms like 'particle accelerator' and 'waveform' I'd hoped were going to lead to some more pseudo-babble, and perhaps a description of some apparatus he had envisioned.

Thanks for your Response Blackholesun. And I mean thanks, you've been good to actually supply what you know rather than ridicule that to me is admirable.

Phlogistician, I'm not going to complain about you wanting some sort of comedic value from my interpretation of things but this is where you and I differ. I don't mention my points without knowing that I probably do have some things wrongly asserted but I'm open to errors and flaws within my logic and hope that people like Blackholesun could occasionally honor me with a correction in logic rather than mear mockery of logic.

I personally don't build fantasiful machinery although I do have some philosophies that aren't necessarily correct, however if those philosophies are truly of value they will stand critism, but critism of fact as apposed to critism of mockery.

I don't mention my points without knowing that I probably do have some things wrongly asserted but I'm open to errors and flaws within my logic and hope that people like Blackholesun could occasionally honor me with a correction in logic rather than mear mockery of logic.

For corrections to be made, what you post has to be more than just techno-babble. Corrections can only be made if the basic framework of the post has it's basis in fact. Your posts, however, are often just a string of words, and completely meaningless.

Instead of posting fanciful rubbish, and hoping to be corrected, why not actually study real phsyics? It would be far more productive.

I personally don't build fantasiful machinery although I do have some philosophies that aren't necessarily correct, however if those philosophies are truly of value they will stand critism, but critism of fact as apposed to critism of mockery.

They don't stand criticism though do they? You haven't managed to push water uphill with a cunning arrangement of pipes yet have you? And when told it won't work, you wouldn't accept that. Even when your experiment failed, you still wouldn't let go of your pet theory, but assumed a flaw in the apparatus. If this is your grasp of science, nuclear physics is way beyond your grasp, so stop postulating. Get the basics learned, and then move on.

Phlog... Was there actually any point to your little outburst.

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it. I know they probably just spoke on the subject that they know pushing my comments to one side which I'm not complaining about, in fact I'm glad they did otherwise I would probably be having the sort of trouble with you in the way that you pick out some thing and turn the discussion into a merry-go-round.

You mention the "Water up hill" experiment, however you don't explain my purpose for doing such an experiment which is to both learn something for myself and to teach others if I actually get around to doing the mathematical model that needs to be generated beforehand. It's not about perpetual motion or anything like that, as far as I'm concerned it matters not if it works or if its a complete failure as long as whatever is done is well documentated.

As for my Physics basics, I have a better understanding than you appear to think, but that is due to the books I've read. There were only sketchy parts that I had to theorize for myself since the book didn't contain the information, however my speculation if accurate proves either the consensus or if inaccurate just and error in judgement not logic.

Question for you Phlog... Are you going to continue this commentary towards me? do you not grow tired? Do you not have something better to do? Spinning around this merry-go-round do you not feel motion sickness?

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it.

I have no problem with it at all.....IF you're willing to listen and in the process learn from what is said back to you. That is one problem I have with other certain folks that populate this section. That said, here is an excellent web site for those to get started with:

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/

Read it...absorb it...go out and seach for more...repeat!

I had to do the math for a bit of this subject matter. The math may not be the most interesting material in the world but it gives you the perspective into WHY those of us see this as the overwhelmingly superior theory of atomic physics. I urge everyone to work through a few problems sometime.

Phlog... Was there actually any point to your little outburst.

What outburst? Did I sound emotional? Use expletives? It wasn't an outburst Stryder, that's you using inappropriate words again. It was a critique of your posts, and your attitude.

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it.

But does he actually find any meaning in your babble? Does your babble communicate? I guess he's more patient with your blind stabbing than I am, but then, maybe he's had to correct you less, and hasn't used so much patience up.

You mention the "Water up hill" experiment, ... It's not about perpetual motion or anything like that,

Really? Because in this topic;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28836&page=2&pp=20

You say;

I created a diagram some time back for a perpetual motion system using liquid

But then later on in that that thread, relating to a new diagram you said;

I'm not suggesting that the system would be completely perpetual

are you confused? Then you said;

however I was suggesting that certain things contradict the overall rulings about why such systems can't work.

I and several others told you it wouldn't work back then, but you didn't believe us. You have still failed to make it work. All this in a thread about perpetual energy. You didn't tell us your results until pressed either, so who was going to learn?

As for my Physics basics, I have a better understanding than you appear to think,

You don't demonstrate that Stryder. Pushing water uphill. Failing to understand the difference between inter and intra molecular bonds, all fairly basic (GCSE) stuff.

Question for you Phlog... Are you going to continue this commentary towards me? do you not grow tired? Do you not have something better to do?

It's not just you though, is it? Maybe that's your paranoia surfacing again. I correct/challenge a lot of spurious physics here, and no, I won't grow tired. Do I not have anything better to do? Ha! That's funny. A better use of your time would be learning real physics, not posting half baked theories here.

Phlog, I think you missed something that I either posted in that Perpetual motion thread or one of the other threads about it. It wasn't about creation a perpetual motion machine it was about creating a system that could have a partial hypothesis to work but more than likely wont.

As I mentioned previously my "attempted" was not a calculated one, which is where the majority of the flaw was. Basically the size of the orifice, and overall volume of the liquid didn't have enough mass to counter act surface tensions of water in a sink, therefore the water in the pipe was "Static" it didn't move one way or the other.

When I eventually get round to it, which could be a while depending on what I'm doing. I will sort out a mathematical model through a spreadsheet or Mathcad and show the results, but you'll have to wait until then for the actual Scientific output since I intend to document it correctly and output the true reason why it does/doesn't work.

As moderators, you both display "off topic" posting that is not being moderated.

Fiery, I'm not a mod.

Stryder, I'm not interested in some spreadsheet or mathcad lash up.

I know it won't work. Nothing you can put in a spreadsheet will convince me. Whatever numbers you come up with not change the way the Universe works, or how a conservative energy field operates.

What will convince me, is you coming up with a verifiable experiment, publishing your findings in a reputable journal, and being peer reviewed. Damn, if you could make water flow uphill, you'd be famous!

FieryIce, If I was to moderate this thread in all it's glory, it might of got closed some time back because of the whole Craterchains scenario being mentioned over and over again.
(Heck this thread would probably be dead on its own)

No Stryder, if you guys would stop your bullshit long enough to observe with your eyes and not your mouth or is that fingers typing, you would see alot more and maybe even have some comprehension. But oh no we couldn't have that now could we?

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA06982_modest.jpg
PIA06982: Behold Titan's Surface (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA06982)

Now maybe back to Mercury?

http://www.mysky.org/terra/astro/4/2/a/42aad628398f590c96578b97565eb2c3/PIA02947.jpg
Astronomy Archive (PIA02947) (http://www.mysky.org/aa/?sub_category=Mercury)

out of topic rant: I don't know how it is to others, but I'm sick fed up with these craterchain threads.

I see no chains in that photo, Ice

I repeat my question -> Do you see craterchains made by intelligent beings in the cookies you eat too? They could be mini-aliens, ya know.

Actually, in that Mercury image I see several crater chains.

I see cookies as being made by somewhat intelligent beings but as for those cookies being the result of weapons of mass distruction, your way off base with that one Avatar.
:D

Highlight these artificial crater chains in that picture, please!

If nuclear weapons were detonated on Mercury, wouldnt it kick up enough debris to put a ring around Mercury?

Also, what were the Aliens indescriminately bombing? Why aren't there any left over structures or anything?

I think I may have discovered alien interference in other places involving projectiles.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42099

May be some can see these two crater chains on Mars? As one studies crater chains and their known, and possible causes, you learn to differentiate between the known types and their causes. Then there are those that seem a bit odd, to say the least. We have researched the ones that are odd and have been collecting images of the ones that fall outside of what is known to occur naturally.

http://www.craterchains.com/gales/mars_compose.jpg

Pan this Mars map to see the entire crater chain! (http://themis.asu.edu/mars-bin/mars_cgi_map.pl?TOP_LAT=69.828125&LEFT_LON=359.67094527&CENT_LAT=64.203125&CENT_LON=10.92094527&DISP_RES=32&DISP_DATASET=Visible&DISP_MAP_DATASET=1&DISP_MAP_PROJ=0&TNAIL_LINK=20041105a&PAN_SELECT_ZOOM=ZOOM&RESCALE=+64+)

This image shows two crater chains running up the image. The one on the right we propose is the longest one discovered to date. With this discovery we are concluding our research of crater chains in our solar system. It has proved to be a great learning process about many aspects of this alien war in our solar system, UFO’s and ET’s. If anyone finds a new crater chain image we don’t have please send it to us at our web site.

Thanks for all the fun times. :m:
The 2004 summary report should be out in a couple months.
Norval

That does not exactly look like a crater chain.

That's funny...because it looks exactly like the type of seams that occur when you stitch images together. Please folk, scroll and follow the "crater chain" all the way down and you'll see exactly what I mean. Basically he's talking out his ass again and expects you folks to fall for it.

Yep image artefact, agreed.

Don't worry, there will be another image soon. I swear, that kid see's crater chains everywhere.

p.s. you know, this loaf of bread seems suspicious to me :mad:

(Q),

Cant believe you can start this thread?...where's the semblence? ...;)

Yeah Q! What happen!? Gone tired of science and converted to pseudo stuff!? :D

Probably retired and went insane :p

Norval and FieryIce's motives are obvious by now.

They are craving for attention and recognition. Just look at the number of craterchains thread they started, not only in sciforums, but also in physicsforums, badastronomy, etc. Each thread is a lame attempt to keep their theory going.

We also know Norval haven't got any proof or research to back up his claims. Truth is, he isn't capable of doing any research at all, which is why he criticizes research from credible sources. Which is also why the so-called proof he posts so far are crap, and there is no reason to expect any good proof from him ever.

Both FieryIce and Norval, after claiming to have done original research and have mathematical proof, fail to present any. The only equations FieryIce have shown are cut-and-paste jobs that are irrelevant. Like here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36047&page=8&pp=20

What this pair want, desperately, is the attention and recognition without doing the hard work that goes into formulating a theory.

And Norval occassionally claim to have endorsement by certain credible sources, which time and again, he cannot name. I leave you readers to judge whether Norval is above lying to get the recognition he craves.

Maybe it is time to http://forums.guru3d.com/images/smilies/ban.gif

While Arch Rival remains spiteful (jealousy perhaps?), we continue our investigations into the events that shaped our solar system undaunted. While the lies continue from ones such as them we are finding the truth and pointing it out.

Here is a Russian report on the crater chains of Mercury. Read it and weep.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1510.pdf

Note this paragraph with the final understanding and conclusion.

"Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenket al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy remains unexplained."

Surely it means we don't quit understand how this process works, but that is not evidence for your ideas though. There is no evidence that this things are unnatural, just not understood.

OMG! LOOK AT ALL THE CRATER CHAINS! THE MARTIANS ARE COM"ING! ARGH!@

http://themis.asu.edu/mars-bin/mars_cgi_map.pl?TOP_LAT=90&LEFT_LON=343.40532027&CENT_LAT=89.3125&CENT_LON=349.03032027&DISP_RES=64&DISP_DATASET=Visible&DISP_MAP_DATASET=1&DISP_MAP_PROJ=0&TNAIL_LINK=20041105a&MAP_IMG.x=680&MAP_IMG.y=35&PAN_SELECT_ZOOM=PAN

F.Y.I.

Email sent for confirmation as to if it is the longest.
We never bothered to question if it was a topographical feature or not. It obviously is not a screw up with the picture.
Subject: Re: Longest pit / crater chain on Mars

On Nov 10, 2004, at 7:00 AM, craterchains@craterchains.com wrote:
> Dr. Christensen
>While looking for a Lat. Lon. location on the Mars map Ms. Gale Smart, a
>co-investigator, came across this image of a pit or crater chain that we
> think may be the longest one found on Mars, so far. If possible can
> this > be confirmed? >
> Sincerely
> Mr. Norval L. Cunningham
> Principal Investigator

Replied.
Th., November 11, 2004 9:50 am
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it is or not.
Phil C.

So we don’t know if it is the longest continuous one yet or not.

Hey those are the sled marks of Santa Claus!

I just loved this statement about the mathmaticaly POSSIBLE way a crater chain could form, IF they were all the same sized pieces, but it dosnt happen that way.

"Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenket al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy remains unexplained."

In other words, broken up space debris didnt do them. PROVEN mathmaticaly.

Duh?

I just loved this statement about the mathmaticaly POSSIBLE way a crater chain could form, IF they were all the same sized pieces, but it dosnt happen that way.
There is no "if" there. They don't need to be same sized pieces....

I just loved this statement about the mathmaticaly POSSIBLE way a crater chain could form, IF they were all the same sized pieces, but it dosnt happen that way.

"Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenket al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy remains unexplained."

In other words, broken up space debris didnt do them. PROVEN mathmaticaly.

Duh?

Does this by any chance mean you've given up on the longest "craterchain" (which was proven to be an imaging artifact) idea or just jumping to another subject as usual to evade admitting you just might be wrong?

I just loved this statement about the mathmaticaly POSSIBLE way a crater chain could form, IF they were all the same sized pieces, but it dosnt happen that way.Short memory, eh?

You two were the ones claiming that the size of the craters in the chain made them special. We pointed out that you couldn't tell by the resolution of your pictures. Then someone actually calculated the size error.

But I guess you forgot all that, huh?

Actually the true subject is this.
Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?

And, the crater / pit chain is not an image fault, but a true topographical feature. As I am sure Dr. P. Christensen would have said something. Duh?

As, also, we have stated that Pete here at scifoolems forums has now discovered an even longer one. But yes, crater chain research is over.

Hi persol.

Are people really arguing with Norval because of <a href="http://www.craterchains.com/ns/cstheorem.html">this??</a>

This page states the Cunningham / Smart Theorem. It demonstrates no apparent knowledge of science, no apparent knowledge of logic, and use as "proof" photographs which do not remotely demonstrate the conditions required by the theorem. If, as a University student, you were asked to state even a well-established theorem and yet did it in this way, you would get a resounding 'F' from your professor.

Ockham's Razor¹ meaning the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Making Ockham's Razor sometimes the hardest to accept.Occam's Razor implies that the simplest explanation is likely to be true, but in actual fact it does not state that. Upon clicking the <a href="http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html">link</a> you provided, it is evident that you didn't even read or understand it.

[Ockham's Razor states that] "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning.

[...]

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider form example the following two theories aimed at describing the motions of the planets around the sun

The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.
The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

If one accepts the second theory solely on the basis that it predicts correctly the motion of the planets one has also accepted the existence of aliens whose will affect the behavior of things, despite the fact that the presence or absence of such beings is irrelevant to planetary motion (the only relevant item is the type of force). In this instance Ockham's Razor would unequivocally reject the second theory.

(Emphasis mine.)

Back to the "Theorem":
It took intelligence to make these O's all in alignment, equally sized, equally spaced, and intentionally nonrandom.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFallacy no. 1. That line of O's appears in front of me as a result of technology: the Internet, my computer and the electrons hitting my monitor screen. But that is not the same medium as craters appearing in rock, so let's say all the technology is irrelevant. In which case your line of O's could have been made by a chimpanzee, or a mouse. The equal size and equal spacing are simply a result of the conditions under which the O's were produced, which was highly artificial. Nontheless, no intelligence was required to produce the Os in a line as they are.Therefore; this also took intelligence to makefollowed by pictures of crater chains. The pictures are not remotely comparable to a line of O's produced on a computer monitor by a keyboard. The craters are not equal sized, they are not equally spaced and the line isn't even that straight.

A straight-ish line of closely spaced craters can be seen on the surface of a distant world. What does science say at first glance about this line of craters that takes into account the apparent non-randomness of the craters? Only this: that they were generated by a single event. Someone who claimed that the line was formed by an accidental and coincidental series of random collisions would be considered as mad by the rational viewpoint, as those who see intelligent action where none is needed (by Ockham). Obviously, therefore, such a line of craters must have been formed as part of a single astronomical event - similar to the break-up of Shoemaker Levy 9, perhaps, although I personally don't see the need for a body to specifically have been broken up by tidal forces - much more likely the first impact broke the object up, but of course I don't have the maths to make that kind of analysis.

Here we go again..... :D

Are people really arguing with Norval because of <a href="http://www.craterchains.com/ns/cstheorem.html">this??</a>



No its worse than that... He has now moved on from ridiculous theories regarding origin of craterchains to actually seeing craterchains which dont even exist. :rolleyes:

Next we know he'll organize a craterchain making demonstration using a few dozen of rockets to show that intelligence is required for that.

Let him. Kooks playing with explosives is always a good way to thin the population.

Crater chains on Phobos!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1100186977/img/1.jpg

Now, I'd just love Norv et al to explain why an alien civilisation needed to nuke a ball of rock just 27km by 19km!

Ask Mars (the god of war?), but probably just a small planetary defense base there on Phobos? Just a thought.

And they had lots of leftover ammo evidently...

Wars usually produce an abundance of left over ammo,, but DURRING the war, we expend amo like YOU are paying for it. Three times in the Nam I was on details to blow up old ammo. All kinds of the stuff. Kind of fun too. But I doubt that what we see is from blowing up left over ordinance.

Norval, not all weapons were explosives. Some are chemical agents that either cause direct respiratory failures or are designed to increases the paranoia of those that breath/ingest it, the ultimate goal in those instances was to cause a breakdown of the chain of command or cause people to just not want to fight.

'Nam wasn't the first usage of such chemical weaponry, the First World War contained the usage of Mustard Gas which caused men to drown from their own blood. It was the main reason why legislation started to come about against such weapons but this didn't really stop pathogen development. (Notibly refined varients of Ergot and chemical chains similar to LSD)

There is then the factor that ex-soldiers have alot to deal with when attempting to intergrate back into the "civilized" world, since they are no longer following orders but out fending for themselves, not to forget to mention that what they did in the field isn't ncessarily allowed in civilization. (For instance "Killing for your country" is a little different to "Killing because someone cheated you" etc.)

In fact there are documents after documents of the psychological traumas that some ex-military types have suffered. Some can bear the weight of what effects war has had on them, while others are dangerous without the conformaties of a chain of command. (You could suggest that perhaps such people would be better off continuing to have a chain of command so they aren't overwhelmed by having to make decisions for themselves).

So my question to you here would be a personal one and therefore I don't expect an answer, do you think that you could have been too near some chemical spray?

Another point which is far beyond whats written above is that the world has certain legislation attempting to ban space weaponry (something the U.S. Defense Dept hates) If we ban weapons from space because we see what damage it can do, don't you think that "alien races" would also in their enlightened state realise how wrong they would be to take weapons and war into space?

Stryder, the only chemical spray I got near that was harmful, was the cheap perfume the nurses wore.

But you neglected the other very potent weapon of war. Crater chain producing weapons is another, but there is one even better.

The word. Be it typed, or spoken, words can be a mighty potent weapon. Properly used they can do more damage and of a long lasting nature that can be far worse than death.

The only thing YOU Stryder have to do is simply this.
Remember, I, Norval, told you so. :D

The word. Be it typed, or spoken, words can be a mighty potent weapon. Properly used they can do more damage and of a long lasting nature that can be far worse than death.The sad thing is, you're wrong. You're posts demonstrate this amazingly.

You mean the fact that his words are so horribly ineffective?

Words are fine to a certain point, but you need somethingt to back them up.

Stryder, the other chemicals troops ingested was given to them to make them fight longer and harder, ... amphetamines. Troops, _pilots_ especially, can still get issued with amphetamines today!

Of course, amphetamines have side effects if taken in large enough doses;

"High doses, especially if frequently repeated, can produce delirium, panic attacks, hallucinations and feelings of paranoia." (http://www.recovery.org.uk/druginfo/index.html)

So I wonder if Norv took Methedrine in 'Nam?

I am sure it is part of my military record if I was issued any such drugs. Look it up, and if you believe that report try my DD214,,, FOCLMFAO :D


:m:

hmmmmm, does this ring a bell? To any one?

Many people post at forums around the world and for many reasons. Below is one example of such reasoning to post.
Quote:
#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.
#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.
#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.
#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.
#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.
#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)
#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.
#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.
#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.
#10.) Visit www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.

A most interesting "hobby"? May be to some and yet to others this seemingly benign attitude is also reminiscent of BET's attitudes.

hmmmmm, does this ring a bell? To any one?

Not to me. Phlog? Arch? Ophi? You guys seen this stuff before? Was there a meeting I missed? Damnit. God Damnity-Damn! I paid my freakin' union dues guys!

#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.

The "woo-woo" or anyone else that makes an extraordinary claim will always have the burden of proof in science. The so-called "woo-woo" simply gets pissed when they get held accountable to the same standard as those with educations. The bar cannot be lowered out of pity. But if they aren't making a claim, why would they have any burden of proof at all?

#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.

I can't stand it when woo-woo's get banned. That's one of the reasons why sciforums has always appealed to me. Without the occasional woo-woo, it would be dull. Besides, I believe that all voices have the right to be heard, even the ones that are full of BS. But, conversely, I believe in the right to provide a counter-argument if warranted.

#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.

Anyone who makes a claim or cites a fact should be ready to provide sources for information. Particularly when refuting nutty claims and speculative assumptions that are being passed off as reality.

#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.

Attacking the person is simply wrong and it's bad form. I've been known to do it on occasion though I think I've kept it to a bare minimum and I remember apologizing more than once. However, I also have noted that many so-called "woo-woo's" regard attacks on their "theories" to be personal attacks. Crazymikey responded this way back in the day on more than one occasion.

#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.

Nah. That's simply unfounded. While there may be some correlation to belief and intelligence, I personally have noted that many of the so-called "woo-woo's" are quite intelligent. Indeed, Agitprop proved herself to be both intelligent and quite superior in wit and ability to debate. Smart people who believe in strange things are generally better at producing arguments for their beliefs.

#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)

I don't think that's the case at all. I recall on several occasions I was corrected on some point and I readily accepted the refutation when I noticed my error. I've also seen those that you would consider to be "debunkers" argue matters in other forums. The difference is, most see the error and either revise their position or provide stronger evidence to support the original one.

#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.

That's why I usually ask questions rather than making a blanket statement with regard to UFOs. Like, "why can't this be..." My only beef with the UFO/ETI proponents is that they typically start with the result they want (that aliens drive UFOs) and work backward. I start with the observed phenomena and provide prosaic possibilities and note that these are more probable. In most cases, there simply isn't any data to draw on. But settling for the alien drivers of UFOs is bad science just because you can't make a conclusion.

#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.

Baloney. Their is either evidence and data or there isn't.

#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.

I think there's been plenty of cases in sciforums where skeptics have disagreed with so-called "woo-woo's" yet offered some various words of encouragement. I've done so with Starman and, just recently, Ophiolite told Btimsah he was smart and humorous. Disagreement, even adament disagreement, doesn't imply complete disdain. Not always, anyway.

#10.) Visit www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.

Hmm. I've noticed several so-called "woo-woo's" here at sciforums that have been banned at Bad Astronomy. Hey, it's Phil's place. He can run it the way he likes.

A most interesting "hobby"? May be to some and yet to others this seemingly benign attitude is also reminiscent of BET's attitudes.

What a wackjob you are! Prove it you nutter! Oh. Wait... I mean how would you know what the attitude is of a BET (assuming that stands for Bad ExtraTerrestrial)? :cool:

You see, what norval is doing is seeking attention again. Would i bother with him? Nooooooo. But i will still engage him from time to time, just to amuse myself.

But norval, i tell you this as someone who is genuinely concerned about you, i think you have some serious mental issues.

Take a look at Chuck Woods LPOD craters

http://www.lpod.org/archive/2005/05/images/LPOD-2005-05-31.jpeg
New Color in Old Pictures, May 31, 2005 (http://www.lpod.org/)

and a kewl crater on Earth

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Sedancrater1.jpg
Operation Storax, Sun Beam, and Roller Coaster (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Storax.html)
:)

Two craters formed by the release of large quantities of energy.

What's your point?

There in lies the point.
Can't you see the feathers through your own quacking?

I suggest you all chill out, relax, have a drink and not bother yourselves with craters and aliens.
They did it, they didn't - what's the difference?
Are afraid to die from an alien death ray? I doubt you could save yourselve even if had the knowledge of it.
Your body will die one way or another.

What *I* see is perhaps someone sensationalizing a mundane correlation with her own grandiose beliefs of what is true.

The correlations you see really aren't there. The Hill crater above is 16 km in diameter and over 3 km deep. The Sedan crater is .39 km in diameter and 97.5 m deep.

The only thing you've shown us is that the potential energy of a meteorite is great. Obviously the energy needed to excavate the Hill and Carmichael craters was far greater

You should also take into consideration the physics of the two bodies that are being compared.

While the earths mass is greater than the moon it also has an atmosphere which the moon has very little of (if any). Objects that are attracted to the bodies gravity will admittedly fall at a different rate to the earth, however will also lack the reaction with atmospheric pressure causing it to not be slowed or broken up on decent.

Also due to the gravity being different on the surface, it means that the stresses the surface dust is under is far less than that of the planet and therefore it means it would react with a greater consequence when suffering an impact.

So in theory a smaller meteor could make a bigger and deeper depression on the moon than it would on the earth.

And veery big high energy weapons can do the same in all circumstances. FOCL

Yes, and thunder gods' left index finger too.

Avatar, apparently, you are still "deceived" into thinking there are still "gods". It
would seem more likely that they are caused by far more technologically advanced
beings. Of course to the uneducated and ignorant, they would be marks of the
"gods". :eek: