Mining Operations

Norval, do you seriously suggest that you are displaying logic?

Please don't take this as a personal assualt on your character. But please understand that you have still to show any conclusive evidence of anything.

Immages of other planets and mining operations on earth gathered from internet websites that very vaguely resemble each other are hardly a basis on which to conclude that "ETI" exists.

If we are to take your claims in any way seriously please present a viable and well thought out arguement as to why we should believe ETI exists. Don't show us more immages.

I will tell you why you shouldn't use digital immages as evidence here:

Digital immages seen on an internet forum are very very dodgy evidence as digital immages are incredibly easy to edit, alter, falsify, have a somewhat deteriorated quality (pixled), are poorly source referenced, or could be completely computer generated for all we know.

Added to this list of cons of using digital immages as evidence is the fact that the immages you use only vaguely resemble the earth ones, and the scale differneces are tremendous as the earth mines are probably hardly visible from space.

Plus there are billions upon billions of miles of area^2 of planet surface in our solar system of which even the small fragment which has been fotographed by NASA probes is humungous. Of this photographed area some natural formations will very likely, from any given angle and light setting, at least vaguely resemble man made structures.


So there you have it, an arguement for why digital immages shouldn't be considered as addequate evidence of *Anything whatsoever*.

And if you are still reading this and have completely ignored everything I have said and are thinking 'Well he is just avoiding commenting on the immages!". Then you are mistaken, I have infact said that they only vaguely resemble earth ones, not nearly enough to be even close.

SO, please give us a viable arguement for what you base your theory of evil ETI being in our solar system. ONly when I see an arguement or a presentation of real (non-digital immage) evidence will I consider your theory...
 
Yes, Exsto, there is a resemblance isn’t there. Yet with all the other potential evidence from so many other sources it still remains a personal acceptance and moving on, or not.

Besides mythology and biblical references of the wars, there are now the photographs that show possible war in our solar system, i.e. CS types of crater chains, which if you read Bottky, even he admits that these types of CS crater chains fall way out side of the possible broken comet pattern capabilities. Prior to that war according to legends there were inhabitants on those moons and worlds. Given the potential heavy bombardment it is my speculation that they were underground dwellers for the most part. Harvesting local materials would be a sure way of cutting down support costs from outside the solar system.

Hey complain to whom ever that want’s to listen to you bitch about image quality. They work for scientists, others and me. Often you can’t see the forest because of the trees. Step up, some of these pictures we have are from space as they can show the mining operations much better as some are many miles big. We have only shown the tip if the iceberg. But what we have questioned about CS types of crater chains and craterchains in general was a first, I can grant you that. Resource mining is also a first that we know of.

How do you spend your time? I’ve had about 48 years of reading and learning and many life experiences to draw from since I am now 54. :D

No offence taken at all, kid. :m:

Just a few thoughts.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
which if you read Bottky, even he admits that these types of CS crater chains fall way out side of the possible broken comet pattern capabilities.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could give a proper citation to Bottke's opinion on this? I believe his hypothesis leans toward rubble-pile asteriods as progenitors rather than comets, based upon his papers.

Existo, let me tell you a bit about Norval:

The primary contention of Norval Cunningham and Gale Smart is that an ancient war was waged by aliens in our solar system and that the "bad ETs" are still here -somewhere.

To support this contention, Norval and Gale have used the presence of catenae and other anomalies on various bodies of the solar system as "proof" of alien war. They claim to have exhausted "all other ideas" and "given theories" of catenae (crater chains) formation and they "settle on weapons as the most likely cause."

However, they clearly either do not seriously consider actual research on the phenomenon; discount it because it doesn't fit their speculation of alien war; or aren't educated enough to understand the research. They've certainly reviewed the research, since they list it in very rudimentary citations on their website.

In attempting to question the accepted theory of tidally disrupted progenitors of crater chain impacts, Norval and Gale make several fallacious assumptions:

1) that comets are the usual progenitors;
2) that the Shoemaker-Levy 9 (SL9) comet did not support the theory;
3) that the catenae they use as examples have uniform craters; and
4) that a sample size of one is sufficient enough to rule out tidally disrupted progenitors.

Comets are the usual progenitors

Norval and Gale have indicated both on their website and in the various internet forums that they've posted in that comets are poor progenitors of crater chains because of the low density material that they're constructed of. Almost ignored is the fact that, while comets are comprised of dust and ice, asteroids are composed of much denser and durable matter. I say almost because they offer this quote on their website: "[The SL9 photos] demonstrates clearly that tidal disruption of mud and ice comets or asteroids were not the cause of these remarkable catinas." C&S seem to make the assumption that asteroids are constructed of the same material as comets. Indeed, they also seem unwilling to concede, discuss or even hear that this is not the case. The concept has been mentioned to them at least twice.

SL9 Offers no Support to the Tidal Disruption Theory

This is completely false. SL9 may not have impacted Jupiter in rapid succession upon breaking up, but it did do two things that support the Theory of tidal disruption. First, it demonstrated that tidal forces can, indeed, disrupt the integrity of an object such as a comet or asteroid (in this case, a comet). Second, it demonstrated that the fragments will create a "string of pearls" effect and basically line up. In the case of SL9, the angle of incidence and velocity of the comet were such that the fragments were much farther apart than was obviously the case with catenae found on moons like Ganymede or planets like Mars, where the craters are adjacent, touching, or even overlapping in a straight or arced line.

Norval and Gale make the mistake of assuming that SL9 is the ideal example of tidally disrupted objects and that no other factors are to be considered.

Crater Chains are of uniform size and distance from one another and, therefore, not natural.

Norval and Gale use several catenae as their primary examples, two NASA photos:

1) http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/02281997_full.jpg,
2) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9712/ganycirc_gal_big.jpg.

Both are photos taken by Galileo. The first is of a catena on Callisto, the second of a catena on Ganymede. Intuitively, if an asteroid were to be tidally disrupted and impact the surface of either of these moons in a string of pearls, we should expect the larger, deeper craters to be in the middle of the group while the smaller, shallower craters to be on the ends.

Norval and Gale contend that these craters are uniform in size and spacing. However, it is clear even by eyeballing the photos without making any empirical measurements, that the ends are tapered in size and depth. In fact, it is most obvious in the Callisto photograph. Yet, Norval and Gale refuse to acknowledge the disparities, consistently stating that they are uniform in all ways.

Either they are unwilling to look close enough to see the disparities, handicapped physically in such a way that they cannot see the disparities, or see the disparities but ignore them as they do not conform to their speculations.

A Sample Size of One is Sufficient

Even if we discount the data that the SL9 impacts give us supporting the hypothesis that objects can be disrupted by tidal forces, and even if we discount the fact that this disruption can result in a 'string of pearls' formation of the broken fragments, we still cannot make assumptions based on a sample size of one. The "tidal disruption theory" proposed by Bottke, et al is certainly reinforced by the actual breakup of one comet and its subsequent formation of fragments. But that theory has been tested by computer modeling, which has taken into consideration many different factors such as orbital velocities, angles of incidence, sizes & densities of progenitor objects, etc. The tidal disruption theory has many supporting factors. The "alien war" speculation cannot even be considered a hypothesis since it is, as yet, non-testable.
 
We have never contended the tidal disruption theory, and actually fact. But they are not going to form CS types of catina, craterchains, or crater chains, as we are looking at. A string of craters across the US or the world, or the planet Jupiter does NOT make a CS type of crater chain. And a tidally disrupted comet, because of the known physics of disruption can, NOT form it. Stop your twisted assertions and get real skinny.
 
Okay... I may have been mistaken. I do seem to recall you or Gale stating that Bottke's theory of tidal disruption was not sound, but since this is really not germane to the entire baloney of "alien war" speculation, I'll concede that point.

And a tidally disrupted comet, because of the known physics of disruption can, NOT form it.

Why? What are the physics behind it? But ignore those two questions as they relate to "comets" and answer them in regards to "asteroids." Bottke, Richardson, and Love's computer modelling clearly demonstrated that they catinae hypothesis as a result of tidally disrupted asteroid progenitors was not only possible, but statistically very probable.

Face it. You live in a fantasy land of alien war and visitation. You've watched one too many episodes of First Wave, X-Files, and Stargate.

On your webpage, you also fallaciously assign Occam's Razor to your problem, implying that the "simplest answer" is alien war when clearly it is not. The SIMPLEST answer is tidally disrupted asteroids impacting the surface after being pulled apart and continuing on their initial trajectory.

But its interesting that the only point you chose to rebut in my post above was the assumption about your position on "tidal disruption." I concede that one. What about the rest?

@Existo Human - Look out... here comes a wonderfully scientific analysis of rolling dice.
 
Just a quick question; Doesnt Occums razor seem kinda useless dealing such thing's as crater chains? How do we know which is simplier at this point? Alien war, or a certain mass of asteroids doing a perfect dance to get crater chains?

Given that we don't know if alien intelligence exist's, yet. Then we can't really use occums razor and expect to get great results. Chances are it will be wrong, once we prove alien intelligence exists, and has existed forever..

Just my (HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATED) two cents... :D :D
 
Skin crawler, you really are a piece of work. Slanderous, insulting, and antagonistic to say the least. :(

Read the published papers from the two Russian scientists (V.V. Shevchenko and T.P. Skobeleva, Sternberg State Astronomical Institute, Moscow University) that clearly show that of the fifteen CS types of crater chains identified on Mercury only one could have “possibly” been caused by a rubble pile “object”. Now try to explain the other fourteen that fall outside of the known disruption, breakup, trajectory, and impacting parameters to form a CS type of uniform crater chain. :rolleyes:

We just offer another possibility. :D
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Skin crawler, you really are a piece of work.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I missed the days when you called me "skin crawler."

craterchains (Norval said:
Read the published papers from the two Russian scientists (V.V. Shevchenko and T.P. Skobeleva, Sternberg State Astronomical Institute, Moscow University) that clearly show that of the fifteen CS types of crater chains identified on Mercury only one could have “possibly” been caused by a rubble pile “object”. Now try to explain the other fourteen that fall outside of the known disruption, breakup, trajectory, and impacting parameters to form a CS type of uniform crater chain.
Click to expand...

What was the title of the paper that Shevchenko and Skobeleva wrote? What page of what journal? The only paper that I'm aware of that they collaborated on is regarding solar soil distribution (Shevchenko & Skobeleva, 1995).

Shevchenko V.V., Skobeleva T.P. (1995) Distribution of Fine Fraction of Lunar Soil Obtained by Remote Sensing. Solar System Research. 29(1) pp. 83-93
 
Typical pseudoscience answer.... "google it. What am I, your research assistant?"

Why not just pick up your copy of the article, read off the title and type it in the quick reply? Or at least a URL?

Answer: "We wouldn't want the debunker to see what Shevchenko and Skobleva really have to say, we just want everyone to think we know."
 
Norval, you're being way too accommodating.
Why not take this discussion to a crater chain thread, that is if Stryder doesn't lock it, instead of discussing crater chains in a mining thread.
 
Because stinky finger probably remembers we all ready addressed this in the crater chain threads, and posted the link there too if I remember,,, tooooo funny.

The paragraph that tells it all.

Discussion: As it was mentioned above the length
of the crater chains distinguished in this work as comet
tracks ranges values from 30 to about 100 km. Schenk
et al. [3] predicted a comet chain length of about 1500
km at Mercury for a 2-km diameter comet passing
within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun. This discrepancy
remains unexplained.

The URL is http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1510.pdf

Thanks to Gale (FieryIce)
 
Last edited:
The discrepancy is not what causes the crater chains, but rather the disparity between predictions of Shenk, et al and Shevchenko, et al. regarding the length of the chains (Shenk et al, 1996:263; Shevchenko & Skobleva, 2001).

Shenk said:
Shenk said:
We have applied the general tidal splitting model of Melosh and Schenk (1993) in order to predict the lengths of crater chains on other planets and satellites (Table III). For a 2-km diameter comet passing within 1.5 solar radius of the Sun, we expect a comet chain length of p1500 km at Mercury, and a chain length of p15,000 km for a 20-km diameter comet. Disruption of sungrazing comets may also be influenced by nontidal forces, however, such as from outgassing due to intense heating, resulting in nonlinear dispersed clusters (e.g., Sekanina 1982).
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear that Shevchenko et al are getting near to being able to work backward from examining the forensic evidence of a crater chain in order to determine the size and composition of the object that impacted the surface by application of a little math and the Roche Limit. Understanding the discrepancy will be important to that end.

Face it, your crackpot theory doesn't hold water... as characteristic of so many cracked pots.

FieryIce said:
instead of discussing crater chains in a mining thread.
Click to expand...
This isn't a mining thread, since there is no evidence of any mining presented. It is a "speculation about alien war" thread, so, therefore, my comments are on-topic. Besides, Norval brought up the crater chain speculation on page 7, post 2 of this thread.


References:
Schenk P; Asphaug E; McKinnon W; Melosh HJ and Weissman P (1996). Cometary Nuclei and Tidal Disruption: The Geologic Record of Crater Chains on Callisto and Ganymede. Icarus. 121(2), 249-274.

Shevchenko, V. and Skobeleva, T. (2001) Crater Chains on Mercury. Lunar and Planetary Science, XXXII.
 
Last edited:
craterchains (Norval said:
Yes, Exsto, there is a resemblance isn’t there. Yet with all the other potential evidence from so many other sources it still remains a personal acceptance and moving on, or not.
Click to expand...

No significant resemblance mind you, and as for the crater chains, if we are to employ occams razor in the question then the alien explenation is cut away very quickly. Because it requires the most assumptions.

To accept that craterchains are normal occurences we need but assume the following:

1.) Tidal disruption theory.

To accept that craterchains are marks of alien weapons we need to assume the following:

1.) ETI exists.
2.) ETI have the technology to travel through space very effectively
3.) ETI have waged war in our solarsystem.
4.) ETI have weapons that make marks identical to craterchains
5.) Mythology and biblical stories pertain to ETI.
6.) It is feasable that ETI either exists in our solarsyste or will travel for thousands of years from another solarsystem in order to wage war on us.

subset (aditional point alternate to point 6.)
7.) ETI have technology that is impossible according to modern physics (faster than light speed space ships)
8.) Accordingly if this true then the whole arguement needs to assume that all the physics we know of or have tested and theorized is fundamentaly fallacious.

Tell me again which arguement needs more assumptions?
 
Last edited:
craterchains (Norval said:
How do you spend your time? I’ve had about 48 years of reading and learning and many life experiences to draw from since I am now 54.
Click to expand...
Then you really should know better.
 
What I can see is that discussing anything of importance or significant is a total waste of time at this forum.
 
FieryIce said:
What I can see is that discussing anything of importance or significant is a total waste of time at this forum.
Click to expand...

FINALLY! A testable hypothesis!

So give us a topic of importance or significance and lets see if it is a total waste of time.
 
FieryIce said:
What I can see is that discussing anything of importance or significant is a total waste of time at this forum.
Click to expand...

Yes, with certain people on here it is. They love to come to the pseudoscience section to debunk pseudoscience conjecture. Then, hypocritically act like their "sick of this crap", knowing full well they make the choice to be here. I mean, what do they expect? :rolleyes:

They do not have the vision to see the impossible or the incredible, when it comes to these types of issues. They can't see what has not been proven, thus nothing can be proven, untill it has been proven. The ultimate catch-22. Alien's won't be proven to exist, untill, Aliens have been proven to exist. :D - And they think WE are crazy?

Their end goal is to end questions and hypothesis like this from people they think are uneducated idiots. They don't want fantastical questions, or claims about alien existance and they don't want people to study these images and come to conclusions, without having a degree. In some cases, if science has not thought of it - then YOU MUST BE WRONG.

You probably posted this image because you saw the image of Miranda thinking it looked like it had been mined, and you noticed the resemblance to some mining operation's on Earth. In other field's of science your kind of open-mindedness and exploration would be encouraged, but on here, in this kind of topic they will only try to SQUASH IT. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top