Mars, destroyed by war?!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

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:

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.

 

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

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">

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What are you talking about? Alternative thinkers?

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?

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.