Crater Research
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
- Status
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
Faulty said:
Ok I didn't account for a vacuum as some of these moons do have but it really wasn't my point. He states that these are nukes and that for some reason an alien intelligence thought that the best use of those nukes was to drop them in a line into the ground. Now granted you could use the material the bomb landed on as a sort of medium for a shockwave. But what I'm saying is that these aliens wouldn't really know how to use a nuke efficiently then as using the hard radiation from a nuke on a planet/moon with a vacuum would be more effective...like a neutron bomb so to speak. Resources are unharmed but you kill the population.
Norval said:
http://www.americansouthwest.net/nevada/lunar_crater/lunar4_l.html
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/meteorcrater.html
And here's a throwback to YOUR statements......use google....find the rest yourself..I'm not your data miner. It's not too friggin' hard if you know how to go to google.
Last edited:
The question was;
Like does anyone have a picture of a KNOWN meteor strike that has left a crater here on earth?
BHS you get an F for failure to read. NOT volcanic. The crater in Arizona is not acceptable as there is no photograph nor proof that it was indeed an impact strike by a meteor. The Indian legends of when and how this crater formed gives rise to doubts that it was a meteor. It is only a THEORY that it was a meteor..
It must be a recent strike with witnesses and photographic evidence. Try again?
But you get a C- for effort. Although you FAIL misserably to get the IDEA that SPACE WARFARE is entirely different than planet skirmishes as our wars have been. This WILL require some original thought. OBVIOUSLY it is a “volley” pattern like a sub would use. I HIGHLY doubt that they were shooting at something on the surface of a moon or planet, but something above the surface. Except for one CS chain that is an obvious ground strike at something sitting on the surface that got hit.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Like does anyone have a picture of a KNOWN meteor strike that has left a crater here on earth?
BHS you get an F for failure to read. NOT volcanic. The crater in Arizona is not acceptable as there is no photograph nor proof that it was indeed an impact strike by a meteor. The Indian legends of when and how this crater formed gives rise to doubts that it was a meteor. It is only a THEORY that it was a meteor..
It must be a recent strike with witnesses and photographic evidence. Try again?
But you get a C- for effort. Although you FAIL misserably to get the IDEA that SPACE WARFARE is entirely different than planet skirmishes as our wars have been. This WILL require some original thought. OBVIOUSLY it is a “volley” pattern like a sub would use. I HIGHLY doubt that they were shooting at something on the surface of a moon or planet, but something above the surface. Except for one CS chain that is an obvious ground strike at something sitting on the surface that got hit.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Craterchains(Norval,
I disagree that there is no evidence of Barringer Crater's origin as a meteorite crater. This site sums up the argument, albeit in a fairly Mickey Mouse kind of way.
I think that you know that that's an unreasonable condition, given the rarity of crater-forming impacts. The atmosphere can slow even relatively large meteorites to such an extent that they do not form a significant crater.
Anyway, how about Chicxulub, Silverpit or Manicougan? (Although Silverpit might just be due to salt tectonics).
I disagree that there is no evidence of Barringer Crater's origin as a meteorite crater. This site sums up the argument, albeit in a fairly Mickey Mouse kind of way.
I think that you know that that's an unreasonable condition, given the rarity of crater-forming impacts. The atmosphere can slow even relatively large meteorites to such an extent that they do not form a significant crater.
Anyway, how about Chicxulub, Silverpit or Manicougan? (Although Silverpit might just be due to salt tectonics).
Faulty
Correctomundo.
To those that don’t question, there is no question as to how these craters may have formed, except the offered acceptable scientific THEORY.
"Anyway, how about Chicxulub, Silverpit or Manicougan? (Although Silverpit might just be due to salt tectonics).
Yes, how about them? Time will tell and only if we can get the true research data.
Dr. Shoemaker was one of VERY FEW scientists that have been allowed ALMOST full access to the test craters of atom bombs. He died in the Australian outback in a head on collision just a week before he was to release his latest findings on the similarities between atom bomb blasts and Barringer and Wolfcreek craters. Personally I have a tendency to agree with Dr. Shoemaker in his investigations. They could be bomb blasts.
Given the lies and information control of specific data it makes the research much more difficult. Good research work on your part though. There are other indicators that Dr. Shoemaker discovered that seem to indicate nuclear or something similar caused these two craters and not meteors.
Yes, I KNEW no one can provide that information of a photo of a KNOWN meteor strike crater. Just like I KNOW that CS crater chains are NOT natural. All we have are theories. Including that of the Cunningham / Smart presentations of crater chains. And we are sure NOT hoping for a demonstration of what really caused them to appear here on earth.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Make sure of what you know, before you say you know it.
Correctomundo.
To those that don’t question, there is no question as to how these craters may have formed, except the offered acceptable scientific THEORY.
"Anyway, how about Chicxulub, Silverpit or Manicougan? (Although Silverpit might just be due to salt tectonics).
Yes, how about them? Time will tell and only if we can get the true research data.
Dr. Shoemaker was one of VERY FEW scientists that have been allowed ALMOST full access to the test craters of atom bombs. He died in the Australian outback in a head on collision just a week before he was to release his latest findings on the similarities between atom bomb blasts and Barringer and Wolfcreek craters. Personally I have a tendency to agree with Dr. Shoemaker in his investigations. They could be bomb blasts.
Given the lies and information control of specific data it makes the research much more difficult. Good research work on your part though. There are other indicators that Dr. Shoemaker discovered that seem to indicate nuclear or something similar caused these two craters and not meteors.
Yes, I KNEW no one can provide that information of a photo of a KNOWN meteor strike crater. Just like I KNOW that CS crater chains are NOT natural. All we have are theories. Including that of the Cunningham / Smart presentations of crater chains. And we are sure NOT hoping for a demonstration of what really caused them to appear here on earth.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Make sure of what you know, before you say you know it.
Craterchains(Norval,
Are you suggesting that many (all?) of the known craters on Earth may not be impact craters?
I'm sure the Chicxulub crater was formed by an impact as it correlates with an almost global layer of iridium-rich clay.
The impactor responsible for the Sudbury crater in Canada constitutes one of the richest nickel deposits known.
The area surrounding Barringer crater was once strewn with fragments of meteoric iron, totalling about 30 tons.
How might these be explained but by meteoritic impact?
Are you suggesting that many (all?) of the known craters on Earth may not be impact craters?
I'm sure the Chicxulub crater was formed by an impact as it correlates with an almost global layer of iridium-rich clay.
The impactor responsible for the Sudbury crater in Canada constitutes one of the richest nickel deposits known.
The area surrounding Barringer crater was once strewn with fragments of meteoric iron, totalling about 30 tons.
How might these be explained but by meteoritic impact?
There are other indicators that Dr. Shoemaker discovered that seem to indicate nuclear or something similar caused these two craters and not meteors.
Faulty said:
I think that's obviously the remains of a crashed space tank. Pitched battle between warring aliens, a space artillary gun shot down a 30 ton space tank... it's obvious.
meteoritic impact, yeah right. You're naive... so, so naive. I don't blame you, it's really the education system that's failed.
Deconstructing a Pseudoscientist II: Craterchains (Norval)
After the glowing reviews my Deconstructing a Pseudoscientist (Part I) post got, I felt compelled to do so again.
Norval and his friend have been visiting boards like sciforums.com and *************.com for some time, touting their "theory" regarding the creation of catenae within the Solar System. Basically put, this "theory" involves an alien race (or races) that wiped out a solar system of life (except Earth?) with nuclear weapons. The reason for this conjecture and speculation? Norval and FieryIce seem convinced that such precision and perfection of pattern cannot occur in nature, since nature, namely comets and rubble-pile asteroids, is too random and chaotic.
Those skeptical of Norval and his friend's claim have asked pertinent questions that simply receive creative answers or no answers at all. So is Norval a pseudoscientist or, like crazymikey, a bona fide, "Open-minded Scientist?"
For this deconstruction, I'll use Park (2003) and Casti (1990) as independent guides to recognizing pseudoscience and "bogus" science among us.
For the lay reader, not interested in Norval's wild speculations (oops. Gave away my bias), this will offer some valuable information to put in one's critical thinking toolkit. For the would-be pseudoscientist, it can offer some "what-not-to-do's" in order to gain credibility among those with baloney-detectors engaged.
First, Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society, wrote a wonderful article (2003) called the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science. He is also the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. Let's look at Parks 7 warning signs and see how many compare to Norval:
So what of John L. Casti's view of pseudoscience? In his book, Paradigms Lost (1990), Casti reveals the following 11 points, some or all of which relate to Norval's claim. Those that don't relate, I will offer a brief explanation of for those interested in Casti's views on pseudoscience.
There you have it: a proper deconstruction of a pseudoscientist. I'm certain that Norval or others will respond as crazymikey did with fallacious attempts to liken this critical review as an ad hominem attack or an attempt at character assassination. It is not.
If one is willing to make a public statement of a wild claim and fail to support it appropriately, then one should expect critique. Contrary to what Norval says ("This is just straight forward SCIENCE, NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE."), it seems as though his hypothesis has all the earmarks and characteristics, save for a select few, of pseudoscience.
This is a science message board (sciforums) and the sub-forum is pseudoscience. One should expect pseudoscience to be exposed more so than expected.
References
Casti, J. (1990). Paradigms Lost. New York: Avon.
Park, R. L. (2003, 31/1). The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (Webpage) (Vol. 49, Iss. 21, Page B20 / Point of View). Retrieved 16/05/04, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm.
After the glowing reviews my Deconstructing a Pseudoscientist (Part I) post got, I felt compelled to do so again.
Norval and his friend have been visiting boards like sciforums.com and *************.com for some time, touting their "theory" regarding the creation of catenae within the Solar System. Basically put, this "theory" involves an alien race (or races) that wiped out a solar system of life (except Earth?) with nuclear weapons. The reason for this conjecture and speculation? Norval and FieryIce seem convinced that such precision and perfection of pattern cannot occur in nature, since nature, namely comets and rubble-pile asteroids, is too random and chaotic.
Those skeptical of Norval and his friend's claim have asked pertinent questions that simply receive creative answers or no answers at all. So is Norval a pseudoscientist or, like crazymikey, a bona fide, "Open-minded Scientist?"
For this deconstruction, I'll use Park (2003) and Casti (1990) as independent guides to recognizing pseudoscience and "bogus" science among us.
For the lay reader, not interested in Norval's wild speculations (oops. Gave away my bias), this will offer some valuable information to put in one's critical thinking toolkit. For the would-be pseudoscientist, it can offer some "what-not-to-do's" in order to gain credibility among those with baloney-detectors engaged.
First, Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society, wrote a wonderful article (2003) called the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science. He is also the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. Let's look at Parks 7 warning signs and see how many compare to Norval:
- The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
As Park points out, bypassing the peer-review process and going public is one of the first signs that the claimant is aware that the "theory" won't pass muster among those of the scientific community. Norval says, "This is just straight forward SCIENCE, NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE. Check the math people for the real truth." Yet he doesn't publish a paper on the subject nor show this "math" he speaks of. What Norval will say is, "Is it my fault that some cant see the significance of the SETI pattern in CS crater chains? NO," and, "It really is very simple principles of motion and trajectories."
But it isn't, apparently, simple enough for the scientific community to understand in a paper!
- The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
I'll let Norval speak for himself: "the DISINFORMATION agents just keep popping off at the fart lips;" orNorval (1/18/04) said:
To the latter sentence, I guess he had a change of heart faced with an intellectual community such as sciforums.com, however, he deleted every post at *************.com rather than address valid points.
- The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Norval's claims are only defendable in that they have testability issues. Norval cites the inability for computer modeling to successfully explain catenae, but that's about as detailed as he gets. He doesn't suggest why modeling fails that I've noticed, only that it fails. He suggests that catenae are similar to rolling dice and winning lotteries in probability, but doesn't show the math to support this. Indeed, he fails to consider that there are constants involved, which increase catenae probability (gravitational forces, tidal disruptions, laws of physics, etc.). The tidal disruption of SL-9 was "debunked" by Norval on the basis that it didn't produce the effect that would create catenae. But Norval doesn't address the issue of tidal forces having advanced effect on the comet, creating a more significantly scattered ruble-pile.
Indeed, Norval relies solely on SL-9 and takes not into consideration the rubble-pile asteroids Nor does Norval address the issue of why the majority of the catenae are on the Jovian side of the moons rather than the opposite side. The Jovian side is where predicted tidal forces would affect impacts.
In short, Norval has no measurable evidence to support his claims, only wild speculation and assumptions.
- Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
Norval's main claim is without anecdote, but many of the peripheral claims (ETI, Disclosure, the biblical stuff, etc.) are replete with it.
In other pseudoscience claims, anecdote provides an emotional connection to the issue and frequently the anecdote will be attached to person(s) of significance, (i.e. Presidents, military men, etc.). These anecdotes are frequently without context or provenience, that is to say the sources and their original context, if any, are absent. Moreover, anecdotes often assume that human fallibilities do not extend to people of status or credible position, which is why they are often accompanied by titles such as, "school teacher," "colonel," "doctor," and even "anonymous." The later appealing to those that recognize that the witness isn't seeking attention, but offers no evidence that the anecdote is actually from a person.
- The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
Again, not much correlation to Norval here, though it can be said that he claims this intra-system war occurred many, many years ago.
Other pseudoscience claims tries to appeal to ancient teachings and dogma, even the bible is cited for such claims supporting creationist/intelligent design views, ancient war on Earth through the Mahabharat story, etc. FieryIce makes an appeal to "ancient texts" as described in #7 below.
- The discoverer has worked in isolation.
To my knowledge, it's just Norval and his "friend," perhaps on a boat somewhere. At least Norval as 45 years of "cognitive" education and FieryIce the same business administration education one would expect from cutting-edge secretaries.
- The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
FieryIce states (5/12/04) that, "We know from the ancient writings that some of the floodwaters came from one of the earth cove[r]ing layers, like the stratospheres and from underground reservoirs." It appears that she is invoking the "firmament" mentioned in early Judeo-Christian mythology. This is used as a way of muddling the explanations for what we already know about our world that, perhaps, come into disagreement with the Norval/FieryIce catenae claim. She suggests that the "firmament" that is "known" through "ancient texts" will affect the way radiocarbon dating would "shrink the millions even billions of years down to thousands." She disregards or is ignorant of the multitudes of other dating methods, nor does she offer any explanation as to how UV affects carbon. It may, but this would doubtless get an answer of "do your own research," or "I'm not your research assistant" if asked of her.
So what of John L. Casti's view of pseudoscience? In his book, Paradigms Lost (1990), Casti reveals the following 11 points, some or all of which relate to Norval's claim. Those that don't relate, I will offer a brief explanation of for those interested in Casti's views on pseudoscience.
- Anachronistic Thinking
See the FieryIce section in Park's #7 above. In fact, upon looking at the other website of Norval/FieryIce, it seems clear that there are other influencing factors, such as the possible makings of a new religious cult centered around the "signs of the heavens" as noted by the site's citations to Luke 21:11 & 25 and Acts 2:19 and related to "anomalies" on Mars and Earth's Moon. Could suggesting that a religious cult is in the making be too harsh? Perhaps, but an open request for funding looks like a desire to obtain followers. Saying that "Disclosure is inevitable, will you survive it?" seems like it's straight out of the Left Behind series of popular Christian fiction.
- Seeking Mysteries
Pseudoscience tends to emphasis mysteries rather than make concerted attempt to solve them. Norval has done a commendable job at attempting to emphasize the inability of science to explain catenae. This is imperative to keep the momentum of a claim that an ancient, nuclear war occurred in our solar system by ETI. To pseudoscientists like Norval and FieryIce, mystery is the most important part of the claim. Once the mystery is gone, so is the limelight and, perhaps, the self-esteem boost one can obtain from public attention (** note: I'm speaking of pseudoscientists in general, I've no evidence that Norval or FieryIce seek attention for self-esteem or other personal psychological gain).
- Appeals to Myths
See Park's #7 above. FieryIce clearly appeals to the mythology of early Judeo-Christian thought. Moreover, their emphasis on the relation of the observed catenae on the Moon, Mars, satellites of Jupiter, etc. with biblical passages seems suggestive of an appeal to mythology. The idea that ancient myths must be based on actual events is a common one among pseudoscientists and creationists (another form of pseudoscience?) alike. This is entirely possible, but, if modern human gullibility and fallibility are any standards to go by, ancient mythology is full of inconsistencies with actual events.
- Casual Approach to Evidence
Evidence is the cornerstone of scientific method. Norval fails to detail any of the methodology of his speculations. He asserts (1/19/04) that a) because catenae are created nearly simultaneously, this is proof nature couldn't have done it. b) He asserts that of the photos available of catenae, they are often the newest feature and therefore must be of intelligent origin. c) He asserts that because science couldn't explain them prior to SL-9, they still cannot. d) He implies that because they weren't made known to the public prior to SL-9, there must have be a hypothesis of intelligent origin. and he states: e) "The only offered THEORY is the ?rubble pile? TDC (tidally disrupted comet). Which is based on the ?chance? it will produce a crater chain of the C/S type."
The problem with each of these assertions is: a) Norval offers no proof that tidally disrupted rubble-piles of asteroids or comets cannot be made to impact in this manner and that it is not a relatively common occurrence. Norval does, of course, maintain that there is some mathematical formula (formulae?), which will discount this hypothesis, but only talks of dice games and the lottery. b) he fails to consider that it is possible that clear and "nice" features are more likely to be photographed or offered up as publicly available (based on bandwidth/filesize considerations). c) & d) cover-up and conspiracy, the establishment trying to keep the information from the public and an emphasis on mystery e) what of the rubble-pile asteroid? The more recent catenae appear to be on the Jovian moons and Mars. Between them are asteroids. Moreover, on the moons, they appear to occur most frequently on the Jovian side, where tidal disruptions are more expected.
Norval's overall claim is that tidally disrupted rubble-piles don't make catenae. I've yet to see his data on why this isn't feasible, he seems to go on his emotion and gut as well as his belief system, which includes the existence of ETI. What better way to "prove" ETI than by suggesting that an untestable hypothesis is the proof?
- Irrefutable Hypotheses
While Norval's claim is certainly refutable, he fails to acknowledge this in any way. Not even to the point of revising to meet objections or arguments made. A hypothesis must have some potential for falsification in order to be valid. Norval's claim makes sure not to include falsifiable data or data which are likely to be tested in his lifetime. Going to the catenae and excavating or making stratigraphic analysis isn't going to occur anytime soon. While tidally disrupted rubble-pile asteroid collisions with satellites/planets are probably relatively common, that doesn't mean they happen with a frequency rate that will allow one to sit and wait behind the telescope.
- Spurious Similarities (or Correlations)
Norval's correlation of catenae to craters left by weapons is clearly spurious. Not only is the explanation anthropcentric (he does contend that ETI are involved), they aren't consistent with the expectation of a civilization(s) with the level of technology needed to travel freely and frequently within the solar system. One would expect such a(n) civilization(s) to be more efficient than merely dropping bombs. Guided missiles and bombs that target specific locations in patterns that meet the layout of the targets (cities, military sites, etc.).
- Explanation by Scenario
Indeed, that Norval is amazed enough by the strict patterning of the catenae to formulate a hypothesis that they could only be created by "intelligent" forces and not the random chaos of nature is itself an example of explanation by scenario. Amazingly, Norval has even been able to infer and induce details of the "war" merely by looking at craters and no artifacts! Why is his talent not being sought after by archaeology teams the world over!?
- Research by Literary Interpretation
This is not to be confused with "appeals to the ancients" and "appeals to myths." This characteristic of a pseudoscientist results from the interpretations applied to established and real science and scientists. The findings that are not supportive of the pseudoscientist's claims are rejected, often outright without refutation. Those that do support the hypothesis, however, are embraced and pointed at as proof of the claim. If I understand some of Norval's contentions correctly (and I do admit he is ambiguous at times), he implies that his hypothesis is accepted by NASA as a "possibility." I've yet to see a citation or source even provided by Norval to support this, but the following quote would support this contention by Norval (if one were to place a comma in the appropriate spot):
Norval is critical of those scientists who have plausible explanations, like William Bottke. He makes unprofessional (Norval does claim to be a researcher, so professionalism would be implied) word-plays on his name the same way he does with sciforums.com members (I really thought Buffys' avatar was an eye until the "tit" remark. Thought it even winked at me like Goofyfish's) and FieryIce (5/12/04) comments "Cornell has taken down all pages of Bottke's et. al. Tidal Disruptive Asteroid theory. LOL." His page is now at his new home with the Space Studies Department of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado. He moved.Norval (5/2/04) said:
- Refusal to Revise
A hallmark of pseudoscience: the refusal to revise one's position in light of new evidence. No matter how effectively someone who is proficient in scientific method or knowledgeable about the physics of orbital mechanics, pseudoscientists like Norval will refuse to revise their positions. They will cling to their "theories" without considering that they may have it wrong. Is this a self-esteem/psychological issue? Could it be a compensation for a lifetime of ignorance and poorly educated intellect? Who knows? It is clear, however, that from the perspective of one with 45 years of "cognitive experience," 4, 6 and 8 years of specialized education isn't enough to be able to demonstrate an intellectual position on the idea.
- Shift the Burden of Proof to the Other Side
A common tactic among pseudoscientists, who will make statements similar to, "but it hasn't been disproved." Norval has certainly been guilty of the "burden of proof shift" on several occasions within this forum. Comments like, "try using your typing skills in the search engines (2/1/04)," or
Yet Norval doesn't show the Math. He instead challenges others to do the work for him rather than support his own "theory."Norval (5/16/04) said:
Within the same postNorval (5/16/04) said:
No Norval. It's your half-baked idea. Either finish cooking it or order pizza. We're not hungry.
- A Theory is Legitimate Simply Because it's New, Alternative, or Daring
This is the Galileo effect. I can't recall if Norval made any statements like this, but with pseudoscientists it is a common thing to say, "they persecuted Galileo, too," and, "Copernicus was laughed at/not accepted in the beginning either." This offers no validity or legitimacy to the pseudoscience argument because the "they" in those cases was often the church. Religion doesn't have the hold over science the way it did in the Middle Ages, thought there are times when I think the influence of the so-called Religious Right is too significant in things such as genetics and bio-research, but that's another topic for another forum(s).
There you have it: a proper deconstruction of a pseudoscientist. I'm certain that Norval or others will respond as crazymikey did with fallacious attempts to liken this critical review as an ad hominem attack or an attempt at character assassination. It is not.
If one is willing to make a public statement of a wild claim and fail to support it appropriately, then one should expect critique. Contrary to what Norval says ("This is just straight forward SCIENCE, NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE."), it seems as though his hypothesis has all the earmarks and characteristics, save for a select few, of pseudoscience.
This is a science message board (sciforums) and the sub-forum is pseudoscience. One should expect pseudoscience to be exposed more so than expected.
References
Casti, J. (1990). Paradigms Lost. New York: Avon.
Park, R. L. (2003, 31/1). The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (Webpage) (Vol. 49, Iss. 21, Page B20 / Point of View). Retrieved 16/05/04, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm.
Last edited:
In the very first paragraph you misrepresent our research, and our theory.
Our web pages and our posts provide the truth of this.
First, we theorize that it is “many” races of ETI’s. Those we call the GET’s or Good ET’s are those you can trust with your kids and cows. Then there are the BET’s the Bad ET’s and I wouldn’t want them near the kids or cows. What’s left of the BET’s from that Alien War are here on earth. The GET’s are making sure they stay there.
Second we say that comet fragments are NOT what caused these CS types of crater chains. NOT that there aren’t patterns in all of nature.
Skinny? After those two misstatements in your very first paragraph what is the sense of reading further?
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
And the slanderous insults of misinformation.
I think you twisted the words for obvious reasons skinny, why change it now?
Our web pages and our posts provide the truth of this.
First, we theorize that it is “many” races of ETI’s. Those we call the GET’s or Good ET’s are those you can trust with your kids and cows. Then there are the BET’s the Bad ET’s and I wouldn’t want them near the kids or cows. What’s left of the BET’s from that Alien War are here on earth. The GET’s are making sure they stay there.
Second we say that comet fragments are NOT what caused these CS types of crater chains. NOT that there aren’t patterns in all of nature.
Skinny? After those two misstatements in your very first paragraph what is the sense of reading further?
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
And the slanderous insults of misinformation.
I think you twisted the words for obvious reasons skinny, why change it now?
Last edited:
I'm a "science-minded" individual. I'll be happy to revise any of the above if you can successfully demonstrate where I was wrong.
I believe I have already proven your slanderous insults of misinformation that you posted skinny, and your lame attempt to modify your first paragraph is pathetic.
As I said, there is no reason to further address any of your above post. Also you freely admit a bias. Keep tossing stones, you will never make a CS crater chain. But that doesn’t mean some “out there” aren’t able to make very large crater chains. That I find to be of a bit more concern than your obvious twisting of peoples posts.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
As I said, there is no reason to further address any of your above post. Also you freely admit a bias. Keep tossing stones, you will never make a CS crater chain. But that doesn’t mean some “out there” aren’t able to make very large crater chains. That I find to be of a bit more concern than your obvious twisting of peoples posts.
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
craterchains (Norval said:
Norval, my post wasn't meant for you. This morning the view-count was 1,040. Tonight it exceeds 1,070. With only 2 posts, the thread itself has been viewed at least 30 times just today. Plus, the google bot will archive it for anyone searching for related terms.
My post was for those that only have your pseudoscientific opinions to go by in hopes that they may have a critical and opposing view with which to guage the truth.
Your belief systems won't be changed by me. But perhaps I can help supplement the critical thinking skills of others.
The mark of all pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.
Not to worry skinny, I am sure that those that can toss some dice, stones, or what ever is convenient can see for them selves that CS crater chains are not going to “just happen” with out some intelligent help in their alignment. That I find much more convincing than anything you have thus said. Kind of like a hot gas can be mistaken for a UFO by you.
Here are a few images.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/ganychain_gal_c1.jpg
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf096/p096-05.gif
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/chad.gif
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/davy_chain.gif
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/craterchain1.gif
http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/3d.crater.chain.jpg
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003/20030304a-med.jpg
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/explorer/topics/com/callist3.gif
What is your motivation? Why do you persist with you crazzy theory? Why do you want the world to know? How do you blockout the obvious flaws in your theory?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/ganychain_gal_c1.jpg
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf096/p096-05.gif
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/chad.gif
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/davy_chain.gif
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/craterchain1.gif
http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/3d.crater.chain.jpg
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003/20030304a-med.jpg
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/explorer/topics/com/callist3.gif
What is your motivation? Why do you persist with you crazzy theory? Why do you want the world to know? How do you blockout the obvious flaws in your theory?
Last edited by a moderator:
Blindman
What is your motivation?
A. The pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and truth.
B. I get such a kick out of all the insults and crap I get.
Why do you persist with you crazzy theory?
A. Because of the knowledge, wisdom and truth I have gained.
B. I am a glutton for verbal abuse and slander.
Why do you want the world to know?
A. That isn’t possible considering my position in this world, but I do know this and other research I have done is of great interest to the powers that be here on earth.
B. Because of all the money and great fame it will bring me when I write the book and sign the movie contract.
How do you blockout the obvious flaws in your theory?
And those “flaws” are? Besides the flawed understanding of many that attempt to disprove what other mathematicians and scientists agree with us on, that it is highly improbable that a comet could do this. Let alone with in a hundred sq. mi. area on Mars there are dozens of CS types of crater chains.
By process of elimination based on known laws of physics of the possible ideas, till you have a few hypothetical and probable theories that the known facts allow for. Because of the known trajectories and physical properties of the impacts we thus eliminate “rubble pile comets” from causing them. We offer the only other plausible and logical theory.
It’s not what you know or don’t know, but what you know that isn’t so, that will hurt you.
What is your motivation?
A. The pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and truth.
B. I get such a kick out of all the insults and crap I get.
Why do you persist with you crazzy theory?
A. Because of the knowledge, wisdom and truth I have gained.
B. I am a glutton for verbal abuse and slander.
Why do you want the world to know?
A. That isn’t possible considering my position in this world, but I do know this and other research I have done is of great interest to the powers that be here on earth.
B. Because of all the money and great fame it will bring me when I write the book and sign the movie contract.
How do you blockout the obvious flaws in your theory?
And those “flaws” are? Besides the flawed understanding of many that attempt to disprove what other mathematicians and scientists agree with us on, that it is highly improbable that a comet could do this. Let alone with in a hundred sq. mi. area on Mars there are dozens of CS types of crater chains.
By process of elimination based on known laws of physics of the possible ideas, till you have a few hypothetical and probable theories that the known facts allow for. Because of the known trajectories and physical properties of the impacts we thus eliminate “rubble pile comets” from causing them. We offer the only other plausible and logical theory.
It’s not what you know or don’t know, but what you know that isn’t so, that will hurt you.
craterchains (Norval said:
Which mathematicians and which scientists? And with which points do they agree with you on?
In addition, do you lump rubble-pile asteroids in with comets in your belief system?
- Status