That is a very good picture of Laos, B-52 bombing, expecially the second url the picture titled "Results of B-52 Bombing". What these pictures do illustrate is that a B-52 type of bombing raid did not create CS chains also the accuracy of shoulder to shoulder craters is just not there in those Laos images.
Mars, destroyed by war?!
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
- Status
Thank You Persol for the great Laos picture link.
It looks to me like it was a meteor moving at a very shallow trajectory, in fact it looks as if one chunk came down and another keeps going at a different trajectory.
As for the other scar marks, note these words "Meteor Shower".
Meteor showers can consist of a large meteor, that breaks up into small and small pieces creating multiple fragments.
As for the other scar marks, note these words "Meteor Shower".
Meteor showers can consist of a large meteor, that breaks up into small and small pieces creating multiple fragments.
But B-52 bombing is capable of producing 'shoulder to shoulder' chains. It just depends on altitude, speed of release (maybe fixed), and atmospheric effects. Seeing as how there are tons of these meteor/comet impact chains, some will statistically have the shoulder to shoulder properties seen. None of the images he shows however are shoulder to shoulder (there is overlap), and the sizes of the craters are not the same.
Interestingly enough, the craters in the center appear to be larger. This is seen in meteor breakups everyday on earth. Small pieces breakoff at first (and fall first). Then the thing basically just falls apart. The large & heavy pieces drop first, while the small pieces coast further. The only link I can currently find for this is the Columbia tracking.
http://www.tinyvital.com/images/ShuttleDisasterRadarTrack.jpg
Notice a resemblence?
Interestingly enough, the craters in the center appear to be larger. This is seen in meteor breakups everyday on earth. Small pieces breakoff at first (and fall first). Then the thing basically just falls apart. The large & heavy pieces drop first, while the small pieces coast further. The only link I can currently find for this is the Columbia tracking.
http://www.tinyvital.com/images/ShuttleDisasterRadarTrack.jpg
Notice a resemblence?
Personally, I think the War on Mars was well documented by the astronomers, as is outlined on the page called "Astronomers Saw!" Astronomers Saw!
Wow, through reading this, there is enough contradictory evidence and logic to say that the original post and the website is definitely bunk propagated by kooks.
But, of course, kooks thinking the way they do, they will completely disregard all contradictory evidence and maintain their pre-conceived notions.
There are better explanations than "a war occurred between unknown beings with unknown weapons"... such as - a meteor broke up in the atmosphere and pieces hit the planet at different times on the same trajectory.
We know what happened with what things, and what caused it. This is mainly because, we have seen it elsewhere and reason allows to imagine that scenario.
I am amazed such beliefs still exist.
But, of course, kooks thinking the way they do, they will completely disregard all contradictory evidence and maintain their pre-conceived notions.
There are better explanations than "a war occurred between unknown beings with unknown weapons"... such as - a meteor broke up in the atmosphere and pieces hit the planet at different times on the same trajectory.
We know what happened with what things, and what caused it. This is mainly because, we have seen it elsewhere and reason allows to imagine that scenario.
I am amazed such beliefs still exist.
Ontop of the whole fact that it looks like a meteor's trail, what reason would anyone have to bomb Mars?
Now before you say "because there was life on it", think about it what proof have you see up close and person, not photo evidence, I mean what have you been able to touch, to look at in great detail and exclaim it was life?
If such a bombing campaign appeared on this planet, there would still be landmarks, piece of structure etc. That was one reason for the testing of specific weapons originally as they were looking for a weapon that did as little structual damage as possible.
A whole desert planet littered in meteorite fragments doesn't look like a haven for life now, or look as if it ever had. The simplist test for life would either been for lichen/fungi growing on the darkerside of a rock, or a worm burrowing through the Mars (since you can't call it Earth.)
If both of those cases are met with a negative (that no worms, lichen/fungi exists) then why should any other life exist?
Without worms then the earth is not turned enough to allow things to grow. As for lichen and fungi, I'm just pointing it out as it occurs on tree's and even in deserts on Earth. In fact if life has ever been on that planet, then they should find the remenants of lichen, or a fossil of it.
Now before you say "because there was life on it", think about it what proof have you see up close and person, not photo evidence, I mean what have you been able to touch, to look at in great detail and exclaim it was life?
If such a bombing campaign appeared on this planet, there would still be landmarks, piece of structure etc. That was one reason for the testing of specific weapons originally as they were looking for a weapon that did as little structual damage as possible.
A whole desert planet littered in meteorite fragments doesn't look like a haven for life now, or look as if it ever had. The simplist test for life would either been for lichen/fungi growing on the darkerside of a rock, or a worm burrowing through the Mars (since you can't call it Earth.)
If both of those cases are met with a negative (that no worms, lichen/fungi exists) then why should any other life exist?
Without worms then the earth is not turned enough to allow things to grow. As for lichen and fungi, I'm just pointing it out as it occurs on tree's and even in deserts on Earth. In fact if life has ever been on that planet, then they should find the remenants of lichen, or a fossil of it.
Persol said:
Thats what you meant right Persol.
So, they made an observation where they didn't realise a planet was being utterly destroyed, where the planet is still here with us today.
Anyway, how comes nobody with credability ever vouches for these sites? I mean serious professors that would stand their ground knowing they are completely right and would not suffer any forms of humiliation as they have corresponding evidence?
Indeed.
Admittedly I think there must be a mathematical equation that could plot the overall number of posts dedicated to various ludicrous theorums involving Mars. It's probably the same mathematics used for working out the rate of growth of cells, or mammals etc, or at least it bears the similarity of the overall reported UFO's that are counted in the release of Project Blue Book.
Notibly in the released information of Project Blue Book, there seemed to be an increase in UFO reports every 5 and 10 years after the first Publicised event (Like an aniversary prank call) , So does that mean in 2009 and 2014 there are going to be loads of people saying there has been life on Mars that wiped itself out with bombing runs?
Admittedly I think there must be a mathematical equation that could plot the overall number of posts dedicated to various ludicrous theorums involving Mars. It's probably the same mathematics used for working out the rate of growth of cells, or mammals etc, or at least it bears the similarity of the overall reported UFO's that are counted in the release of Project Blue Book.
Notibly in the released information of Project Blue Book, there seemed to be an increase in UFO reports every 5 and 10 years after the first Publicised event (Like an aniversary prank call) , So does that mean in 2009 and 2014 there are going to be loads of people saying there has been life on Mars that wiped itself out with bombing runs?
Nah, this isn't nearly publicised enough... and won't be because of the obvious flaws. It will just come back the next time something lands on Mars. This shit always does...
I'm trying to find statistical data on meteor breakups. It should get the point across if the Columbia breakup photo didn't do it for me.
I'm trying to find statistical data on meteor breakups. It should get the point across if the Columbia breakup photo didn't do it for me.
I decided to have a look around and found these:
Contains a meteor trail picture with TWO PARTS (split trajectory)
http://www.cyberbound.net/observatory/oakcreek/meteors.htm
Nice picture of a meteor trail
http://www.wa4dsy.net/personal/meteor.html
Contains a meteor trail picture with TWO PARTS (split trajectory)
http://www.cyberbound.net/observatory/oakcreek/meteors.htm
Nice picture of a meteor trail
http://www.wa4dsy.net/personal/meteor.html
Better still, the average person can conduct an experiment in their own back yard. Simply create a bucket of loose paste consisting of water and clayey soil. Dip your hand in it and, assuming the viscosity is just about right, it will load up on your hand.
Cock the hand back with fingers extended and joined then sharply straighten the arm so as to fling the droplets of mud on the ground.
If one did this toward a muddy surface, one should expect to see "crater-chains." Note: all of the "meteorites" of mud originated from the same object (the hand). Perhaps two asteroids or moons impacted each other, flinging similar meteorites toward the surface of the planet.
If so, we would expect to see a couple remnants of satellites orbiting Mars, with at least one quite misshapen from the collision.
Cock the hand back with fingers extended and joined then sharply straighten the arm so as to fling the droplets of mud on the ground.
If one did this toward a muddy surface, one should expect to see "crater-chains." Note: all of the "meteorites" of mud originated from the same object (the hand). Perhaps two asteroids or moons impacted each other, flinging similar meteorites toward the surface of the planet.
If so, we would expect to see a couple remnants of satellites orbiting Mars, with at least one quite misshapen from the collision.
Righty, so supposedly these chains of craters were created by repeated dropping of ordnance, or some energy weapon. How come we can't see the remains of the target? Not a single road, leading to or from the area?
How come the craters haven't weathered. I mean, the _people_ that did this breathed some sort of atmosphere, didn't they. Must have, if the planet had an indigenous population and they were making war, they must have breathed something. But no, there is no weathering, so the atmosphere disappeared at the end of the 'war'.
I just can't believe what kooks manage to find to believe in. It truly amazes, me.
How come the craters haven't weathered. I mean, the _people_ that did this breathed some sort of atmosphere, didn't they. Must have, if the planet had an indigenous population and they were making war, they must have breathed something. But no, there is no weathering, so the atmosphere disappeared at the end of the 'war'.
I just can't believe what kooks manage to find to believe in. It truly amazes, me.
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.
To take issue with the logic of a few of your points:
We have photographs of many things we don't have an explanation for... it's possible that the Shoemaker-Levy impact gave the "scientists" an idea they didn't have before. In any case, this explanation is 9 years old... how long has the "nuclear war" explanation been around? More than 9 years, I hope, if you're making this criticism of "scientists".
Again, no one wants to look like an idiot. If you have a picture of something and show it to people, and they say "What's that?" and the best you can come up with is "I dunno," then you might not be too eager to flash your picture around too much after that happens a few times. It's also not useful to continue harping on a subject in the media when no new information comes to light for thirty years.
Your THEORY is a THEORY too, and with no greater credibility unless you're claiming additional, corroborating evidence of the war-making.
This is a poor analogy at best, and if you claim to be an informing authority you should steer clear of such an abuse of probability. The problems:
1) Relating interplanetary physics to a medium like the number/position outcome of a large group of dice is not in the least informative, either of the processes involved or of the probability of the occurrence in question. The average person is unable to answer this question: If you throw two dice, what is the probability that they will end up touching each other?
If the answer to that question is not intuitive, then your analogy is no better (possibly worse) than a description of the actual system that you're talking about.
2) Furthermore, because of the non-intuitive nature, most people who do not understand the fine points of the poor system of probability you are describing will still understand that your analogy is being creatively weighted to support your argument. It sounds an awful lot like saying, "The chances of this are the same as the chances of the following scenario happening: You throw a toothpick on the ground and it turns into Abraham Lincoln." It looks like some crap you made up.
3) This analogy also relies on an appeal to the consistency of probability, i.e. if something is really really unlikely then it will never happen more than once. No matter how unlikely an arrangement of planets and comets you imagine, nothing about our universe prevents that occurrence from happening many times.
This is not a court of law and you cannot demonstrate Alien Nuclear War by the doctrine of Reasonable Doubt. This last-ditch recourse to fakey legal language is tiresome to say the least, because of the last sentence, where you attempt to make it appear that you've disproved the "chance" theory by the assertion that four stones in a row might have been arranged by an intelligent thing. The problems with this assertion:
1) We have independent, universally agreed upon evidence that intelligent things exist on the Earth. We have little to no evidence that intelligent things existed elsewhere in the Solar system prior to the creation of the crater chains (which they must have created in your theory).
2) Random arrangements of objects will take on a meaning in human perception that they were not given by any intelligent agent. A bowl of rice krispies may have fallen in an arrangement such that they form words. The words may be visible for all to see, and yet still have come about by chance and not by the guiding hand of an intelligence.
3) The chance theory, however lately it may have been decided upon, does have corroborating evidence in the form of a widely witnessed event, the SL9 impact. The Alien War theory has as its only evidence the very thing that it was invented to explain, which is the poorest kind of evidence that a theory can have.
4) At best, if you convince people that the Alien War theory is a possible theory, this still does not rule out the possibility of chance impact, however much you may try to imply so with your last-minute weaselwording.
I can't discount the possibility of an war of the Extraterrestrials, but I don't have any reason to believe it either. It remains in the category of theories with insufficient evidence, much like the "structures on other planets" photos that fluid1959 keeps posting.
We have photographs of many things we don't have an explanation for... it's possible that the Shoemaker-Levy impact gave the "scientists" an idea they didn't have before. In any case, this explanation is 9 years old... how long has the "nuclear war" explanation been around? More than 9 years, I hope, if you're making this criticism of "scientists".
Again, no one wants to look like an idiot. If you have a picture of something and show it to people, and they say "What's that?" and the best you can come up with is "I dunno," then you might not be too eager to flash your picture around too much after that happens a few times. It's also not useful to continue harping on a subject in the media when no new information comes to light for thirty years.
Your THEORY is a THEORY too, and with no greater credibility unless you're claiming additional, corroborating evidence of the war-making.
This is a poor analogy at best, and if you claim to be an informing authority you should steer clear of such an abuse of probability. The problems:
1) Relating interplanetary physics to a medium like the number/position outcome of a large group of dice is not in the least informative, either of the processes involved or of the probability of the occurrence in question. The average person is unable to answer this question: If you throw two dice, what is the probability that they will end up touching each other?
If the answer to that question is not intuitive, then your analogy is no better (possibly worse) than a description of the actual system that you're talking about.
2) Furthermore, because of the non-intuitive nature, most people who do not understand the fine points of the poor system of probability you are describing will still understand that your analogy is being creatively weighted to support your argument. It sounds an awful lot like saying, "The chances of this are the same as the chances of the following scenario happening: You throw a toothpick on the ground and it turns into Abraham Lincoln." It looks like some crap you made up.
3) This analogy also relies on an appeal to the consistency of probability, i.e. if something is really really unlikely then it will never happen more than once. No matter how unlikely an arrangement of planets and comets you imagine, nothing about our universe prevents that occurrence from happening many times.
This is not a court of law and you cannot demonstrate Alien Nuclear War by the doctrine of Reasonable Doubt. This last-ditch recourse to fakey legal language is tiresome to say the least, because of the last sentence, where you attempt to make it appear that you've disproved the "chance" theory by the assertion that four stones in a row might have been arranged by an intelligent thing. The problems with this assertion:
1) We have independent, universally agreed upon evidence that intelligent things exist on the Earth. We have little to no evidence that intelligent things existed elsewhere in the Solar system prior to the creation of the crater chains (which they must have created in your theory).
2) Random arrangements of objects will take on a meaning in human perception that they were not given by any intelligent agent. A bowl of rice krispies may have fallen in an arrangement such that they form words. The words may be visible for all to see, and yet still have come about by chance and not by the guiding hand of an intelligence.
3) The chance theory, however lately it may have been decided upon, does have corroborating evidence in the form of a widely witnessed event, the SL9 impact. The Alien War theory has as its only evidence the very thing that it was invented to explain, which is the poorest kind of evidence that a theory can have.
4) At best, if you convince people that the Alien War theory is a possible theory, this still does not rule out the possibility of chance impact, however much you may try to imply so with your last-minute weaselwording.
I can't discount the possibility of an war of the Extraterrestrials, but I don't have any reason to believe it either. It remains in the category of theories with insufficient evidence, much like the "structures on other planets" photos that fluid1959 keeps posting.
Persol
Congratulations you also identified the anomaly of the seemingly tapered ends to many of these chains. We to find that interesting and are developing the theoretical why.
Phlogistician
Read carefully our data on Mars and what astronomers were reporting over the last 150 years. The canals disappeared; landmasses were destroyed or changed drastically altering the face of Mars. And a lot more evidence we don’t list. The photographic and astronomers notes are there for all to see. Planetary war will tend to blow away both atmosphere and water. There is your SETI pattern of non-random and sequential patterning!
BigBlueHead
So I take it you agree with the Bottke, Richardson and Love theory of chance?
Obviously you shouldn’t gamble. Astronomers were reporting what today we would identify as nuclear explosions many decades prior to 1945 when the BOMB was used.
Argue with the scientists, we are just putting it all together from their notes and photos.
Congratulations you also identified the anomaly of the seemingly tapered ends to many of these chains. We to find that interesting and are developing the theoretical why.
Phlogistician
Read carefully our data on Mars and what astronomers were reporting over the last 150 years. The canals disappeared; landmasses were destroyed or changed drastically altering the face of Mars. And a lot more evidence we don’t list. The photographic and astronomers notes are there for all to see. Planetary war will tend to blow away both atmosphere and water. There is your SETI pattern of non-random and sequential patterning!
BigBlueHead
So I take it you agree with the Bottke, Richardson and Love theory of chance?
Obviously you shouldn’t gamble. Astronomers were reporting what today we would identify as nuclear explosions many decades prior to 1945 when the BOMB was used.
Argue with the scientists, we are just putting it all together from their notes and photos.
I assume from your oblique reference that you at least skimmed my criticisms of your argument, but I may be wrong; I'll address what you've said. The fact that scientists detected radiation bursts/emp effects like those from nuclear explosions doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since high-speed impact of two masses causes high-energy reactions of the same kind. When two objects strike each other at high speed it's not unusual to find radioactive byproducts afterward. I understand that many exotic forms of matter are theorized to have existed briefly in the SL9 impact, triple-bonded hydrogen and so on.
I am unwilling to try and dissect the Bottke/Richardson/Love papers (whichever one/ones you happen to be referring to) to understand your reference to their version of chance. I have not read them up until now... if you are willing to state more clearly what you mean, perhaps I'll be able to understand why your reference to throwing fifty dice and having them come up in some specific spatial arrangement is a more reasonable description of a system of probability.
As for your interpretation of the data, I would say that "scientists", whoever they are (apparently not Bottke & crew, anyway) are not to blame for the fact that you've inferred interplanetary nuclear war from their photographs. Many correctly gathered data have been wildly interpreted/misinterpreted over the years and I see no reason to blame the original observers/collectors of the data in this case.
I am unwilling to try and dissect the Bottke/Richardson/Love papers (whichever one/ones you happen to be referring to) to understand your reference to their version of chance. I have not read them up until now... if you are willing to state more clearly what you mean, perhaps I'll be able to understand why your reference to throwing fifty dice and having them come up in some specific spatial arrangement is a more reasonable description of a system of probability.
As for your interpretation of the data, I would say that "scientists", whoever they are (apparently not Bottke & crew, anyway) are not to blame for the fact that you've inferred interplanetary nuclear war from their photographs. Many correctly gathered data have been wildly interpreted/misinterpreted over the years and I see no reason to blame the original observers/collectors of the data in this case.
- Status