You know many of the impact craters don't looks the same size or distance to me, I really don't see the intelligent intervention there.
Craterchains, natural or ?
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
- Status
Yes its looks very simple to me, naturally simple in fact. The example you posted below, look at the craters they are obviously of different size and distance if a meteor broke up just seconds before impact it would easily create that pattern.
Well, there are hundreds of this type of crater chain we feel couldn’t be natural, but then you do have to look at the other pictures. It does require effort to question and click. Little effort is required to summarily agree with Bottky’s theory. But then how many are really interested in doing things for themselves? We offer the only other theory of cause for the CS type of crater chain. After having ruled out such mundane things as possible gas eruptions aligning themselves along some fault line because of the obvious physical properties of where we find the CS type of crater chains.
Silverback
Registered Senior Member
I spent a little time looking at crater chain photos from NASA before responding to this thread. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe they are not natural impact craters. Rather cool, that, but I certainly don't need to think up some aliens to see how they got there.
The evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of asteroid/comet break up and crash, it boggles my mind that people have to resort to UFOs. Unless you are just joking? This is just a good natured moment of silliness, right?
The evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of asteroid/comet break up and crash, it boggles my mind that people have to resort to UFOs. Unless you are just joking? This is just a good natured moment of silliness, right?
You can go ahead, think this is a joke or just good natured silliness and keep accepting all the conclusions derived from financial-result-orientated institutions or individuals. Instead of the word silliness, I like the word accountability.
I do not think UFO has been mention until now, personally my opinion is the U does not apply any more, but then again, UFO's have nothing to do with CS crater chain research.
Yes, Miranda is an anomoly, unique in fact.
I do not think UFO has been mention until now, personally my opinion is the U does not apply any more, but then again, UFO's have nothing to do with CS crater chain research.
Yes, Miranda is an anomoly, unique in fact.
I have yet to hear a theory on why aliens would makes these craters?
Based on all known data of what can make a crater, and you ask how?
Based on all the known data of why those craters were made, you ask why?
By basing any theoretical possibilities on what we do know of ALL types of crater formations, and how they are formed is a good start. From there you should eliminate the obvious ones that because of physics properties couldn’t have caused what you are looking at. That’s a start at least to discovering the highest probability of the what and why. What do you think?
Based on all the known data of why those craters were made, you ask why?
By basing any theoretical possibilities on what we do know of ALL types of crater formations, and how they are formed is a good start. From there you should eliminate the obvious ones that because of physics properties couldn’t have caused what you are looking at. That’s a start at least to discovering the highest probability of the what and why. What do you think?
So far the arguments presented have turned up no NEW ideas, plausible theories, or information we don’t already have, or have at least considered. If any had actually looked at all the pictures we have on the research site, had actually gone to the links we list and READ what the scientists are saying you would find that you are not arguing our ideas, but theirs. We quote the scientists own observations from their web pages, and it is their points and observations we are using against them.
Had you actually read their observations you would have noted;
1. The crater chains do not have ejecta material falling back into them from the next, thus indicating that the craters in the chain formed nearly simultaneously.
2. The crater chains appear to be the newest feature in the photographs making them some of the youngest or newest formations in our solar system.
3. The scientists offered no explanation prior to the 1994 SL9 comet break-up. They have had photos of crater chains since 1967.
4. Besides a couple of narrowly distributed journals these pictures never were brought to the publics attention till after comet SL9 impacted Jupiter.
5. 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.
We offer the analogy that using dice we can demonstrate crater chains of the type we are investigating (C/S) are not going to happen by chance hundreds of times in our solar system. Imagine that each side of the cube represents one aspect of the known properties of crater chains. Toss 50 die out and the resultant pattern necessary to equate this to a chance happening of a crater chain would be as follows. All the same numbers up, to the left, to the right, and having all landed in a close line almost touching each other.
Imagine walking a gravel path and seeing several stones aligned along the path, OOOO, it would be reasonable to at least THINK, “someone did that intentionally”. We rest our case for crater chains having been caused by ETI, and NOT by chance.
Had you actually read their observations you would have noted;
1. The crater chains do not have ejecta material falling back into them from the next, thus indicating that the craters in the chain formed nearly simultaneously.
2. The crater chains appear to be the newest feature in the photographs making them some of the youngest or newest formations in our solar system.
3. The scientists offered no explanation prior to the 1994 SL9 comet break-up. They have had photos of crater chains since 1967.
4. Besides a couple of narrowly distributed journals these pictures never were brought to the publics attention till after comet SL9 impacted Jupiter.
5. 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.
We offer the analogy that using dice we can demonstrate crater chains of the type we are investigating (C/S) are not going to happen by chance hundreds of times in our solar system. Imagine that each side of the cube represents one aspect of the known properties of crater chains. Toss 50 die out and the resultant pattern necessary to equate this to a chance happening of a crater chain would be as follows. All the same numbers up, to the left, to the right, and having all landed in a close line almost touching each other.
Imagine walking a gravel path and seeing several stones aligned along the path, OOOO, it would be reasonable to at least THINK, “someone did that intentionally”. We rest our case for crater chains having been caused by ETI, and NOT by chance.
Ya but why?
I second that motion, he lacks any proof that aliens did cause it, there is no black monolith, no neon sign that says "ignignog was here" just some craters that line up most likely by a geological mechanism that may or may not yet be understood.
Unfortunately, we find that we are the only ones that have really offered any other possible theory or explanation for what caused these CS crater chains. I am a war vet and YOU show these photos to war vets and bomb damage assent people and see what kind of response you get. When you get those professional opinions stop and think that earth doesn’t seem to be touched, and if there were any losers or escapees from this theoretical war, where would they go? Are we harboring the losers down here? OK, who’s throwing the intergalactic keger? What ultimatum?
In all honesty, we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years. In further honesty, only two possible explanations, caused by intent, or happened by chance. We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing. The computer model must give the same. Try and read all that we say first, then develop your arguments. We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces that by chance align like what we see impacting simultaneously. Really think about that!
I been looking through the photos you have on your site and I really really do not see why these can’t be explained as natural meteor impacts! Come on these thing have different distances and varying sizes for the craters. Some of them like Phobos and Miranda don't even resemble anything unnatural!
Hey, Persol, all I have is the bullet holes, if I were you I would be concerned whom or what was holding the gun. Actually the THEORY was published to NASA in November of 2002, at their request. Some of the history of our research information is not available right now as we are rebuilding the site, sorry.
What can I say in reply WCF, that you want to disagree with the scientists that have made many comments as to their abnormally close alignment, or that they marvel at how they were able to all strike nearly simultaneously? Be my guest, but I for one marvel and question this also. A machine gun has variations in its patterns also. Recognizable by those with experience in such maters, this represents one very big machine gun.
What can I say in reply WCF, that you want to disagree with the scientists that have made many comments as to their abnormally close alignment, or that they marvel at how they were able to all strike nearly simultaneously? Be my guest, but I for one marvel and question this also. A machine gun has variations in its patterns also. Recognizable by those with experience in such maters, this represents one very big machine gun.
In all honesty, we have been getting our hands on all the data concerning anything about crater chains and potential causes over the past two years.
Except for the explanation of science?
We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing.
You don't understand physics either do you?
I have 1 piece. It breaks into saw 12 pieces. They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line. This is observable in the bomb photos that I showed. The weight distribution (the 'widening and shrinking' of you chains) was clearly shown in the Columbia breakup. All it takes is the right combination of speed and drag. Now please point out where this is flawed.
We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces
Well, they aren't 'evenly sized' so there goes that idea. This is clearly seen by the different sized craters.
that by chance align
They stay aligned because of physics, not chance.
like what we see impacting simultaneously
You have no actual evidence of this. They do overlap slightly as is, and there is no reason to think that they impacted at the same time.
So, where is my explanation (which is much simpler and supported by science) flawed?
Except for the explanation of science?
We offered the dice, as it is 6 sided giving the necessary number of equations plus having been sent on a trajectory by tossing.
You don't understand physics either do you?
I have 1 piece. It breaks into saw 12 pieces. They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line. This is observable in the bomb photos that I showed. The weight distribution (the 'widening and shrinking' of you chains) was clearly shown in the Columbia breakup. All it takes is the right combination of speed and drag. Now please point out where this is flawed.
We KNOW a comet will break up in atmosphere and that it DOSNT break up into 50 evenly sized pieces
Well, they aren't 'evenly sized' so there goes that idea. This is clearly seen by the different sized craters.
that by chance align
They stay aligned because of physics, not chance.
like what we see impacting simultaneously
You have no actual evidence of this. They do overlap slightly as is, and there is no reason to think that they impacted at the same time.
So, where is my explanation (which is much simpler and supported by science) flawed?
- Status