Crater Research
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
- Status
Arch Rival
You are now in the same position that Persol is on “ignore”. You provide NO arguments that are original, and we have addressed and answered ALL of the questions presented to us. We have addressed and discussed ALL other offered and stated possibilities. We have even come up with a couple of NEW ideas on how they may have happened that no one else thought of. There have been no new theories or ideas on how they may have formed for the three years we have been investigating them.
You have yet to formulate any new questions that we haven’t all ready explained to the best of our ability months ago. I may have been a bit hasty in assuming you to be college level. Those that hide behind their computer screens and don’t even give the basic information about themselves DO usually have something to hide. Mostly their lack of self worth and ignorance. They lack integrity and honesty also.
Try reading what is stated on the APOD for that picture, it TELLS exactly where the CS crater chain is in relation to the other strange features in the photo. Also that it is OBVIOUSLY the newest feature in that photo.
You are now in the same position that Persol is on “ignore”. You provide NO arguments that are original, and we have addressed and answered ALL of the questions presented to us. We have addressed and discussed ALL other offered and stated possibilities. We have even come up with a couple of NEW ideas on how they may have happened that no one else thought of. There have been no new theories or ideas on how they may have formed for the three years we have been investigating them.
You have yet to formulate any new questions that we haven’t all ready explained to the best of our ability months ago. I may have been a bit hasty in assuming you to be college level. Those that hide behind their computer screens and don’t even give the basic information about themselves DO usually have something to hide. Mostly their lack of self worth and ignorance. They lack integrity and honesty also.
Try reading what is stated on the APOD for that picture, it TELLS exactly where the CS crater chain is in relation to the other strange features in the photo. Also that it is OBVIOUSLY the newest feature in that photo.
FieryIce, are you suggesting that the magmatic activity responsible for the nickel deposit at Sudbury might have been due to the detonation of a "high energy, hot explosive"? Bear in mind that the deposit formed about 2 billion years ago.
Could you elaborate here? I'm afraid I don't understand what oil pockets you mean, or the connection between oil and impacts/nuclear explosions.
Nor do I understand your reason for posting links to information about jade. Jade comprises two minerals: jadeite and nephrite. The site says that Burma's deposits were formed by the hydrothermal alteration of serpentinised peridotite when the area was intruded by dykes. Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but what is the connection with your crater research?
Faulty said:I realise that this thread has taken a different direction now, but I feel I must confess something that has been torturing me for days...
On May 16th I posted this:
It appears that I am a disinformation agent after all, because after looking a little deeper it seems that the ore deposit was not delivered by the impactor, but that the impact helped trigger the melting and the formation of an igneous pluton. Segregation of which probably concentrated the metal.
Thankyou all for indulging me!
Faulty, i indulged you, that is why the information about jade, along with your nickel. So if you don't understand what this has to do with crater chains then maybe you should not have brought up nickel in the first place.
LOL
The thread is about crater research. Examples of known impact sites were requested. I supplied a few, one of which may well have played a role in the formation of the Sudbury nickel deposit. I recently corrected an error I had made previously. So far so much crater research.
Then you brought to the discussion an enigmatic aside about oil occurrence and a link to information about the economics and traditions behind jade trading in Burma.
Your response to my query:
Am I the only one who's confused?
Then you brought to the discussion an enigmatic aside about oil occurrence and a link to information about the economics and traditions behind jade trading in Burma.
Your response to my query:
Am I the only one who's confused?
AKA Heathen
Registered Senior Member
FieryIce:
Thank you for providing the source of the image. It is precisely as I suspected. The original caption makes no mention of crater chains or rubble piles.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02960
Nor would I expect it to since the focus is on cryo-tectonics. Personally, I forecast that few, if any crater chains will be found on Europa simply because the surface is hundreds of millions of years younger than Ganymede and billions of years younger than Callisto.
Back on point, your use of a caption you invented yourself (without explicitly admitting it) is deceptive. The last statement before the image is also deceptive.
“Here is an example of Bottke et. al. rubble pile crater chains”
No, it is not. This is not accidental deception: it is clearly deliberate. Bottke has no connection to that image or vice versa. So, no, it plainly is not an example of ‘Bottke rubble pile crater chains’. It is willful misrepresentation. You might want to consider the difference between ethical persuasion and deceptive coercion.
This sort of behavior alone all but guarantees that you will not be able to publish in a mainstream, peer reviewed journal. The fact that you guys are not actual researchers is not the reason you’re not being published. Sleaze rhetoric is not tolerated by reputable publications. Fallacious reasoning is not tolerated either. Neither of you have managed to get through two consecutive posts without rejecting a truth or embracing a falsehood.
You both have a tall task ahead of you. You really do have to clean up your act.
Thank you for providing the source of the image. It is precisely as I suspected. The original caption makes no mention of crater chains or rubble piles.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02960
Nor would I expect it to since the focus is on cryo-tectonics. Personally, I forecast that few, if any crater chains will be found on Europa simply because the surface is hundreds of millions of years younger than Ganymede and billions of years younger than Callisto.
Back on point, your use of a caption you invented yourself (without explicitly admitting it) is deceptive. The last statement before the image is also deceptive.
“Here is an example of Bottke et. al. rubble pile crater chains”
No, it is not. This is not accidental deception: it is clearly deliberate. Bottke has no connection to that image or vice versa. So, no, it plainly is not an example of ‘Bottke rubble pile crater chains’. It is willful misrepresentation. You might want to consider the difference between ethical persuasion and deceptive coercion.
This sort of behavior alone all but guarantees that you will not be able to publish in a mainstream, peer reviewed journal. The fact that you guys are not actual researchers is not the reason you’re not being published. Sleaze rhetoric is not tolerated by reputable publications. Fallacious reasoning is not tolerated either. Neither of you have managed to get through two consecutive posts without rejecting a truth or embracing a falsehood.
You both have a tall task ahead of you. You really do have to clean up your act.
AKA whatever
Yes, it is our opinion, just that of two normal people that are not world famous scientists, that have common sense and only life’s experiences to use for comparative relationships and pattern recognition, that this is what a Bottke rubble pile comet would look like if it hit shortly after breakup.
If it goes against the grain and chaps their asses, yours included, and that our theory is still the only other viable probability being looked at, then so be it. Even with all the research grants these great scientists get they still can’t get a rubble pile comet to act as they want it to with any computer simulation to show that rubble pile comets cause CS (Cunningham / Smart) types of crater chains.
We are not attempting to get any publishing done in any scientific circles for any reason whatsoever. Call us deceptive? FOCLMFAO We are just waiting for the final proof of our research and investigations to vindicate our stated theories. Time will tell who was correct, and who, well, got paid to help deceive the general public.
It took a few months to actually find an unmarked surface where there were a bunch of craters grouped as we see them in that photo. Granted there are no comments about that lone grouping of craters, so why don’t you ask Dr. Bottki about that photo and if it could be a rubble pile comet strike? Go ahead, ask him, FOCLMFAO (Till you get a reply from Bottki,,,, you are on our ignorant list.)
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
It’s not what you know or don’t know, but what you know that isn’t so, that will hurt you.
Yes, it is our opinion, just that of two normal people that are not world famous scientists, that have common sense and only life’s experiences to use for comparative relationships and pattern recognition, that this is what a Bottke rubble pile comet would look like if it hit shortly after breakup.
If it goes against the grain and chaps their asses, yours included, and that our theory is still the only other viable probability being looked at, then so be it. Even with all the research grants these great scientists get they still can’t get a rubble pile comet to act as they want it to with any computer simulation to show that rubble pile comets cause CS (Cunningham / Smart) types of crater chains.
We are not attempting to get any publishing done in any scientific circles for any reason whatsoever. Call us deceptive? FOCLMFAO We are just waiting for the final proof of our research and investigations to vindicate our stated theories. Time will tell who was correct, and who, well, got paid to help deceive the general public.
It took a few months to actually find an unmarked surface where there were a bunch of craters grouped as we see them in that photo. Granted there are no comments about that lone grouping of craters, so why don’t you ask Dr. Bottki about that photo and if it could be a rubble pile comet strike? Go ahead, ask him, FOCLMFAO (Till you get a reply from Bottki,,,, you are on our ignorant list.)
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
It’s not what you know or don’t know, but what you know that isn’t so, that will hurt you.
We are just waiting for the final proof of our research and investigations to vindicate our stated theories. Time will tell who was correct, and who, well, got paid to help deceive the general public.
Who's paying you?
I wouldn't hold your breath - anyone with a brain in their head knows there will be no vindications for your so-called 'research.' That in itself is an oxymoron.
Who's paying you?
I wouldn't hold your breath - anyone with a brain in their head knows there will be no vindications for your so-called 'research.' That in itself is an oxymoron.
Does anyone else see the humor in this?
AKA Heathen pointed out that your picture and caption are deceptive, which is true. He also pointed out that Bottke has nothing to do with that actual image.
Furthermore, you claim to have math that demonstrates your idea... which is funny since you haven't shown anything besides the 50 dice analogy, which is so wrong that several people have decided to explain why to you already. You are using a poorly camoflagued 'god did it' argument.
"God must have made life because life has billions of atoms all in the right place. It's like a coin landing heads up 1 billion times."
"Crater chains must be made by aliens because they form straight lines. It's like dice all lining up in the same direction."
In both cases you are completely ignoring that nature CAN make patterns. Nobody is standing on mars tossing a bunch of nukes in the air and waiting for them to all land. similarly, no rocks are being launched into the air and landing randomly. You analogy is just plain broke.
Moreover, you haven't had any luck at all at addressing why these can be craters caused by a rock/comet. You dice analogy seems to be the only lame attempt.
AKA
I have not misrepresentated or deceived.
You cannot dispute that the image of Europa shows a cluster of impacts, you cannot dispute that those impacts do not fit within the definition of crater chains, you cannot dispute that cluster of impacts shows rubble pile chains.
Rubble Pile
CS Crater Chains
AKA, you can do the math:
for the population
for samples
the the general case
However, the null hypothesis says that:
HO: m1=m2
Hypothesis Testing
Knock yourself out AKA but I think even hoser heroes, Bob and Doug McKenzie would comprehend the rubble pile vs CS Crater Chains.
I have not misrepresentated or deceived.
You cannot dispute that the image of Europa shows a cluster of impacts, you cannot dispute that those impacts do not fit within the definition of crater chains, you cannot dispute that cluster of impacts shows rubble pile chains.
Rubble Pile
CS Crater Chains
AKA, you can do the math:
However, the null hypothesis says that:
HO: m1=m2
Hypothesis Testing
Knock yourself out AKA but I think even hoser heroes, Bob and Doug McKenzie would comprehend the rubble pile vs CS Crater Chains.
Last edited:
LMAO. That is just sad man. That is first year probasbility and tis is a physics problem. Moreover you are using a VERY limited sample of seen impacts. Using your very own 'math' you can show that it's very possible that an impact forms the pattern shown, but we haven't seen it happen.
So I take this to mean that you doun't actually have any applicable math to suport your point? (Note: equations alone do not support your point)
It's amazing that you took an intersting and complicated physuics problem and dumbed it down as far as possible.
So I take this to mean that you doun't actually have any applicable math to suport your point? (Note: equations alone do not support your point)
It's amazing that you took an intersting and complicated physuics problem and dumbed it down as far as possible.
AKA Heathen
Registered Senior Member
1. Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something.
Check
2. Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle.
Check
3. Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).
Check - although they are ignoring the equations for gravity, but not quite the same
4. Try to answer as few direct questions as possible.
Check, check, check, check, check....
5. Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible.
check
6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims.
Lol, check again.
7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series.
Oops, they missed a step.
8. When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate.
*cough*50 dice*cough*
9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry.
Lol, check... but Norval seems to get more angry than anyone else.
10. Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means.
Damn, missed 2 steps.
11. Two more words: Paradigm shift.
Probably check, but I may be wrong.
12. Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby.
Check
13. Drink heavily while posting.
Check, by obseration
15. Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible.
check
16. When your position appears hopeless, your entire audience is laughing at you, and you've lost all credibility (and perhaps even won a Kook of the Month) threaten everyone within proximity with a lawsuit.
Lol, was it crater that threatened me with a libel suit, or someone else?
20. Refer to anyone who doggedly uncovers your latest little scams, time after time as "stalkers."
check
21. Remember to occasionally tell your opponents that you've handed all the information you've collected about them to the local police/Mounties/FBI
Lol, nasa, check.
22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter
check
24. Pretend to have a degree.
check
25. Claim that there is no evidence that you are a fraud, kook, net-abuser, spammer, or liar.
check
26. When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....
check, how many threads on this now. How many did I report which got closed?
27. When questioned, be sure to exclaim "They laughed at Galileo, too!" or perhaps "They laughed at Columbus, until he proved the earth was round!"
checked
28. Always bear in mind that The Conspiracy Against You can do almost anything.
check
29. Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist
check... unfortunately they have yet to actually provide a name
30. Dig out one reference that supports your position.
damn, they missed another one
34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact".
check
35. Sock Puppets are very useful.
Maybe they should try this too...
38. Use lots of ALL CAPS letters.
check
40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.
check
You two are well on your way to success. I look forward to one day seeing your attempt at actual math regarding this theory.
Check
2. Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle.
Check
3. Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).
Check - although they are ignoring the equations for gravity, but not quite the same
4. Try to answer as few direct questions as possible.
Check, check, check, check, check....
5. Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible.
check
6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims.
Lol, check again.
7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series.
Oops, they missed a step.
8. When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate.
*cough*50 dice*cough*
9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry.
Lol, check... but Norval seems to get more angry than anyone else.
10. Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means.
Damn, missed 2 steps.
11. Two more words: Paradigm shift.
Probably check, but I may be wrong.
12. Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby.
Check
13. Drink heavily while posting.
Check, by obseration
15. Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible.
check
16. When your position appears hopeless, your entire audience is laughing at you, and you've lost all credibility (and perhaps even won a Kook of the Month) threaten everyone within proximity with a lawsuit.
Lol, was it crater that threatened me with a libel suit, or someone else?
20. Refer to anyone who doggedly uncovers your latest little scams, time after time as "stalkers."
check
21. Remember to occasionally tell your opponents that you've handed all the information you've collected about them to the local police/Mounties/FBI
Lol, nasa, check.
22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter
check
24. Pretend to have a degree.
check
25. Claim that there is no evidence that you are a fraud, kook, net-abuser, spammer, or liar.
check
26. When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....
check, how many threads on this now. How many did I report which got closed?
27. When questioned, be sure to exclaim "They laughed at Galileo, too!" or perhaps "They laughed at Columbus, until he proved the earth was round!"
checked
28. Always bear in mind that The Conspiracy Against You can do almost anything.
check
29. Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist
check... unfortunately they have yet to actually provide a name
30. Dig out one reference that supports your position.
damn, they missed another one
34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact".
check
35. Sock Puppets are very useful.
Maybe they should try this too...
38. Use lots of ALL CAPS letters.
check
40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.
check
You two are well on your way to success. I look forward to one day seeing your attempt at actual math regarding this theory.
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
What is funny is that he is refering to a psychological statistics webpage reinforcing what Persol said....that they see no use in using any environmental variables at all in their math. It's like me trying to determine an orbit to use to launch a satellite in LEO by taking a population sample of other various orbiting satellites.
It’s interesting to note that the so called “skeptics” can’t come up with a working math formula to prove their disproof. That when you answer the question they don’t have the common decency to admit they were wrong, nor are they able to offer any valid arguments or proof to support their claims besides quoting crack pot debunkers. The tactics of lies, slander, and defamation of character continues even after they are proven to be such bastards. These are the kind of individuals that attempt to break peoples will to keep going. Kids? You will have to do far better than that. FOCLMFAO (cracks a rib) Ouch.
Great job of rebuttal Feisty Ice. *big grins* I really like that image of Europa as it causes scientists to really scratch their heads and pull out their hair as to what could have possibly caused such unique surface disruptions. Isn’t that the one that seems to have a Cunningham / Smart type of crater chain on the left of it that also seems to have had an unfortunate miss transmission of data? FOCL
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Incompetence strikes deep, into the mind it creeps, apparent to all but them.
Great job of rebuttal Feisty Ice. *big grins* I really like that image of Europa as it causes scientists to really scratch their heads and pull out their hair as to what could have possibly caused such unique surface disruptions. Isn’t that the one that seems to have a Cunningham / Smart type of crater chain on the left of it that also seems to have had an unfortunate miss transmission of data? FOCL
The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Incompetence strikes deep, into the mind it creeps, apparent to all but them.
Last edited:
It’s interesting to note that the so called “skeptics” can’t come up with a working math formula to prove their disproof.
People have. It's called gravity. NOTHING says that meteors are not capable of breaking up in that way.
That when you answer the question
Lol, you answered a question? I think not.
Great job of rebuttal Feisty Ice. *big grins* I really like that image of Europa as it causes scientists to really scratch their heads and pull out their hair as to what could have possibly caused such unique surface disruptions.
Um, perhaps if you actually pointed out what was the 'unique surface disruptions' which at all point to your theory. Or are you talking about his poor attempt at math?
People have. It's called gravity. NOTHING says that meteors are not capable of breaking up in that way.
That when you answer the question
Lol, you answered a question? I think not.
Great job of rebuttal Feisty Ice. *big grins* I really like that image of Europa as it causes scientists to really scratch their heads and pull out their hair as to what could have possibly caused such unique surface disruptions.
Um, perhaps if you actually pointed out what was the 'unique surface disruptions' which at all point to your theory. Or are you talking about his poor attempt at math?
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
craterchains (Norval said:
Hahaa.....clever move on your part. Since you can't address the questions raised about your theory, you decide to ignore them. i've always told you, if the questions i raised have been answered before, simply post a link to them, instead of insisting "they have been addressed and i refuse to do it again."
craterchains (Norval said:
Aah....an attempt at personal attack. When you resort to this, it shows you haven't any logical arguments worth a damn.
And oh yes....since i've yet to see any link from craterchains.com to this site, i am still assuming you are trying to muffle the bad press.
- Status