Crater Research

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stryderunknown said:
Malicious in this particular thread is constant attacks at their theory
Click to expand...

Than if that's how you define 'malicious' I think you need a dictionary.

Norval's 'theory' should stand scrutiny and peer review. That's the 'science' part of 'pseudo'science.

If he's bleating about people having the intellect to see through his bullshit, then he can go post where there aren' tany intelligent people to see through it.

Really Stryder, you should know better than to try an silence one side of a debate. This isn't the 'wacky bullshit monologue' section. Norval will get people disagreeing with him, and it's not up to you to take sides, and silence people who disagree with him.
 
Actually my first thought/feeling for this thread is to close it, however doing so will just cause more problems. It's not about "silencing debate" or "generating monologue", it's about the overall peer review already suggesting an answer that doesn't actually need to be defined by me.
 
If you closed the thread, Norval will just start another, bring out the same tired of refuted garbage as if it is shiny and new, and we'll go around again. Leave the post and the people be.

Everyone involved knows what Norval is, it's been played out through these pages. It shows just why some pseudo science really does need sneering at.

Firstly, the cardinal sin, selection of data. Norval only considers fairly regularly spaced craters. He ignores data which dosn't fit his model. Second, he then makes wild postulations about his flawed data set, without further evidence.

Norval deserves derision, and if this is where he gets it, all the better. And if he keeps gettign it, and dosn't like it? Well, he doesn't have to post here, he can pack up his snake oil and sell it somewhere else.
 
Phlogistician, i don't think Stryderunknown is trying to silence anybody or take sides. He's just trying to stop some people here (i wonder who??) from dissing Norval and Co in the interest of starting a constructive discussion.

But Stryderunknown, considering Norval's replies here, and in other forums, do you think his real objective here is for a constructive discussion? Or just to keep repeating his stuff in an attempt to get recognition, and in the process fill this place with his nonsense?
 
Admittedly It's been Quid Pro Quo, where every action has be responded to with an equal one and judging by the overall effect it's limited discussion to rudimentary personal attacks rather than actual discussion from "Both sides".

The main reason this thread has stayed open this long has been due to the occasional "discussed content" involving source material being sought by either side from websites to deal with the "fors" and "againsts".

So if you insist discussion should be allowed to continue, then I suggest more evidence or as Arch_Rival mentions more Constructive discussion than destructive.
 
You all may get a chuckles out of this.
http://www.lpod.org/LPOD-2004-01-27.htm

The paragraph reads:
Is there any volcanism on the Moon? For the first half of the 20th century this had been a burning question. Finally, the 1949 publication of Baldwin's book convinced most scientists that lunar craters had formed by high speed impacts. But volcanism had also played a major role on the Moon for it produced the vast maria and the small domes. But was that all? The best example of another type of putative volcanic landform is the Davy crater chain, a 47 km long line of 23 craters that is superposed across the rectangular crater Davy Y. This alignment of one to three km wide pits is hard to see with scopes smaller than about 8", but spacecraft images provided a series of excellent views. (Davy is the 35 km wide crater at the top of the image with small central peaks and walls that have slumped onto its floor). The Davy chain is not a secondary crater chain because it isn't radial to any believable primary crater. Very high resolution images show that the craters probably formed at the same time because one crater's ejecta doesn't cover adjacent craters. So even today a few lunar scientists think that a line of simultaneously erupting volcanoes is the best interpretation. But there are no other volcanic features nearby. The most widely accepted explanation is that the Davy chain formed from the impact of the pieces of a tidally disrupted asteroid or comet that had been recently shredded by a too close approach to Earth. This is a Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 phenomena applied to the Earth-Moon system. This ideal was independently proposed by Ewen Whitaker and Jay Melosh, and Bob Wichmann and Chuck Wood.

So it looks like the scientists as of the beginning of this year that are knowledgeable on the subject still aren’t all in agreement.
 
lol, ok. If your now using the lack of alien war discussion as evidence then I admit it, the proof is everywhere!

No matter how many articles I read none, not a single one, mention the alien wars in our distant past. They also omit my "giant unicorn on pogo stick" theory when discussing lunar geology. Damn those snobby bastards to hell!
 
bla bla bla
the sound of sheep

denial, refusion, ignorance, and irrelevant information.

i think the reason no real evidence will emerge is that these wars may have happened millions of years ago, thus evidence may have decompossed/deteriorated already. there is also the notion that perhaps the war happened on a higher dimensional level than we perceived now... thus all evidence would be invisible to our limited eyes' visible spectrums.

i believe a good amount of evidence lies between mars and jupiter, the Asteroid belt. It is claimed that this war destroyed planets, and it is also said that the asteroid belt was once a life-bearing planet between Mars and Jupiter, and that the orbits of all our planets were much closer, placing this supposed planet in just about the right spot for life...
 
So tell me if I have this right...

Invisible aliens fought a war millions of years ago, leaving behind "no real evidence", but the fact of this war is supported because:

It is claimed that this war destroyed planets, and it is also said that the asteroid belt was once a life-bearing planet between Mars and Jupiter, and that the orbits of all our planets were much closer, placing this supposed planet in just about the right spot for life
Click to expand...

Now that is science in action!
 
there is also the notion that perhaps the war happened on a higher dimensional level than we perceived now... thus all evidence would be invisible to our limited eyes' visible spectrums.
Click to expand...
If that were the case then how would we even know of this war, if it didnt even happened in our plane of existence? :bugeye:
 
That higher plane of existence is called 'heavily medicated'. All kinds of cool things go on there.

But seriously, I want to try a little test. Crater, could you post a list of all your 'evidence' and our responses, (and then yours if you have any). Just a short synopsis.

If you have proof as you say, and you do this, then it'll all be there to see.
 
zonabi said:
bla bla bla
the sound of sheep

denial, refusion, ignorance, and irrelevant information.

i think the reason no real evidence will emerge is that these wars may have happened millions of years ago, thus evidence may have decompossed/deteriorated already. there is also the notion that perhaps the war happened on a higher dimensional level than we perceived now... thus all evidence would be invisible to our limited eyes' visible spectrums.

i believe a good amount of evidence lies between mars and jupiter, the Asteroid belt. It is claimed that this war destroyed planets, and it is also said that the asteroid belt was once a life-bearing planet between Mars and Jupiter, and that the orbits of all our planets were much closer, placing this supposed planet in just about the right spot for life...
Click to expand...

That's right, Zonabi. Come up with some hypothesis that you think cannot be disproven so it must therefore be the truth. And label anyone who disagrees as "sheep".

To others:
i think if there really was alien structures on the moon, some might still be visible. This is because erosion is not much a factor on the moon.
And i think the most telling evidence of bombardment by aliens is a concentration of radiation from the craters. Have any of you come across such evidence?
 
Actually zonabi's more of a sheep because he has his lips firmly planted on norval's ass, agreeing with everything he says. I love it. Because we're "mainstream", we're sheep. I thought critically applying logic to a "theory" with a lack of evidence was called intelligence
 
Well admittedly Zonabi has some pretty fanciful ideas on many things. But they do not reflect what the CS crater chains show clearly. Nor do they reflect or represent what I personally think.

Considering all the hoopla and many differing ideas wouldn’t you expect someone to ask the question, or make the comment, “gee these look like? Big, very big, FUCKING BIG GUNS? But not one peep anywhere on the web till we came along. Not even anything from anywhere in over THIRTY FIVE YEARS ! ? ! ?

Yes Buffy’s, I do find that highly interesting.
 
gee these look like? Big, very big, FUCKING BIG GUNS?
Click to expand...
No... because they also look like big, very big, FUCKING BIG IMPACT CRATERS. If you want to go with something unsupported, you can replace 'IMPACT CRATERS' with rain drops, volcanic ring catena, etc. It's all well and good to say 'big guns', but do you have ANYTHING to back it up with?

So, once again:
Crater, could you post a list of all your 'evidence' and our responses, (and then yours if you have any). Just a short synopsis.

If you have proof as you say, and you do this, then it'll all be there to see.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Well admittedly Zonabi has some pretty fanciful ideas on many things. But they do not reflect what the CS crater chains show clearly. Nor do they reflect or represent what I personally think.
Click to expand...

you see the problem right? From what you've offered so far Zonabi's theory is just as likely as yours. I just can't believe you have the nerve to call Zonabi "fanciful".

If you honestly can't understand why the majority of us doubt your ideas just ask yourself why you find Zonabi's theory fanciful. The exact same reasons apply to our skepticism of you.
 
Actually i'd rank Zonabi's ideas much lower than Norval's. i can see why Zonabi supports Norval's ideas. The reason is because Norval advocates the conclusive evidence of ETs, something Zonabi wants desperately to support his own wacky ideas. Even his attempts to piss the moderators, calling others sheep, etc is a move of desperation on his part.

I would be willing to consider alien bombardment caused those craters, but as of now all evidence/observations raised runs contrary to that hypothesis.
 
WAR has many facets and this war that some clearly see evidence of, is not yet over. CS crater chains are only a part of that war. For those that have looked at known war damage and crater photos the resemblance of CS types of crater chains is by far a closer match than anything else. But that is only my opinion, and a few others.

Some scientists say that a crater chain can form from a comet breakup every hundred years. Some say every thousand years. Not much agreement there.

Some scientists say they were formed by underground water channels that collapsed. Obviously they didn’t consider all the properties of “where” these crater chains formed.

Then there are those that “think” (and I use that term very loosely) that they are billions of years old. While it is obvious to those that really study the photos that in many cases these CS types of crater chains or pit chains are some of the newest formations in the photos.

Remarkable is the word for the astute thought processes of some pseudo researchers and debunkers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top