Multiple Ringed Craters

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:52 pm

, , yep, its all about craters in this thread, but in reality it is about craters with in craters, and within craters.

Or did yah all forget and get side tracked, again?

Not really but you still haven't provided any evidence yet. You haven't even bothered to produce a link that shows any of these craters in craters. I'm sure there are many of them, you just haven't shown any of them yet, or did they all get removed from the web?

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:06 am

well, OBVIOUSLY you can't seem to find any of the ones I am talking about. That is a fact.

Gee, I wonder why?

Norval

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:17 am

I don't get your last post Norval. All I want is some pictures of these craters in craters, so that I can try and judge if they look unusual. Why not link a few? Otherwise whats the point of this discussion when these things potentially dont exist anyway.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:04 pm

From a real astronomer.

http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060915

Do your own research work astro.

Norval

P.S. Thanks Dr. Wood

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:30 pm

Thats not how science works Norval, if you have results you should present them, then others decide if they agree with them, if they don't then they do some more research.

Imagine what a waste of time research would be if everyone kept all their results secret.

dcmcp · Post by **dcmcp** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:34 pm

craterchains wrote:From a real astronomer.
http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060915

And this is significant...
..how?
I see impact events that happen to be separated in time, but not in space.

Do your own research work astro.

astro's response says it all.

iamlucky13 · Post by **iamlucky13** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:45 pm

From the LPOD link provided:

Random impacts should occasionally be centered within pre-existing craters. Here is one of the most famous near-misses. Boussingault, down near the lunar south pole, is a crater within a crater. Because both are large, it is easy to see that both are impact structures - there is no waffling about possible volcanic origins for either. It is amazing that the younger inner crater, Boussingault A, did so little damage to its surrounding older crater. You can see on the Lunar Orbiter view where the continuous ejecta of “A” is draped over the terraces of Boussingault - it has a well-defined scarp where it stopped flowing uphill. It is also intriguing that the moat area between the two is filled with a smooth plains material that seems to embay the edges of “A” and thus must be younger than it. And the smaller crater (K) on the joint rim of Boussingault and “A” appears to have done no damage on its right side but its left side has covered Boussingault’s wall and apparently caused material to slump into “A”. It is remarkable that sometimes a tremendous impact producing a crater tens of kilometers across does so little damage to its immediate surroundings, and other times causes huge landslides and dumps great amounts of ejecta everywhere.

My interpretation of that is pretty strong support for the status quo.

Also, taking a good look at it, you'll probably notice that peculiar squarishness also seen on Barringer Crater. I don't have any point to be made by that. I just thought it very interesting.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:28 pm

astro
Only your opinion, and far from the truth. Note the many pictures that are NOT released to the "public", even AFTER the stated and lawful time laps for release, we are still waiting for them.
Many are only released AFTER they have been released to specific "scientists" to put their "spin" on what is seen. I have stated this is ongoing research, exploratory research, no "results" are yet published. And, yes, my time is wasted by many that are just like you. Yet your feed back has provided much of what we were seeking as to expected response postings. Thank You.

dcmp
rolls eyes

iamlucky13
Many astronomers have "questionings" that go against the main stream status quo of what was generally accepted as to cause of crater formations and their differences.
QUOTE
"Random impacts should occasionally be centered within pre-existing craters. Here is one of the most famous near-misses." and "It is remarkable that sometimes a tremendous impact producing a crater tens of kilometers across does so little damage to its immediate surroundings, and other times causes huge landslides and dumps great amounts of ejecta everywhere."

But, there are far too many of these craters within craters than an "occasional" one. That and the fact about the ejecta amounts differing, cause me to continue to search for alternative causes for craters.

Norval

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:14 pm

craterchains wrote:But, there are far too many of these craters within craters than an "occasional" one. That and the fact about the ejecta amounts differing, cause me to continue to search for alternative causes for craters.

Norval

Show us.

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:18 pm

Yeah I'd like to see them too.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:05 pm

Honestly, astro, are your arms painted on? For someone that claims to be a professional, even an astronomer, do you really need to be spoon fed like a freshman?

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:55 am

FieryIce wrote:Honestly, astro, are your arms painted on? For someone that claims to be a professional, even an astronomer, do you really need to be spoon fed like a freshman?

So in other words, you've got nothing.

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:08 am

Honestly, astro, are your arms painted on? For someone that claims to be a professional, even an astronomer, do you really need to be spoon fed like a freshman?

No I dont have to be spoon fed, but my time is far too valuable to spend searching for pictures of Fairies, you say you have them, I say show me.

The fact that you won't strongly implies you have nothing. Apart from conspiracy theories about Scientists hiding data, and to be honest I hear enough of that drivel elsewhere.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:48 pm

This was just way to funny, , ,

astro_uk wrote:
Honestly, astro, are your arms painted on? For someone that claims to be a professional, even an astronomer, do you really need to be spoon fed like a freshman?
No I dont have to be spoon fed, but my time is far too valuable to spend searching for pictures of Fairies, you say you have them, I say show me.

The fact that you won't strongly implies you have nothing. Apart from conspiracy theories about Scientists hiding data, and to be honest I hear enough of that drivel elsewhere.

Spoon? hell he needs a baby bottle!

Oh, you have plenty of time to search the web for material to "character assassinate"
Gale, I, and others, yet far to busy to even discuss what has been presented thus far?!?!?
Yeah, right. FOCLMFAO, too funny. If you had but spent a few moments of that
valuable time just looking at the various astronomy picture of the day sites you would
have been able to see several of the crater types we are now investigating. It is good that
you hide behind a moniker, but only for you. Obviously your real life must suck, huh?
Face the real world, or remain the coward you appear to be.

It is FACT, not theory, that photos are intentionally kept from the public till a "plausible
theory" can be presented for what is seen in them. We exposed this right here at APOD
in a couple threads. Search them up, that is if you can take a moment of that so valuable
time from character assassinating?

The same goes to all of you that feel you have to hide who you really are, cowards!

Put up, or shut up!

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:54 pm

craterchains wrote:Put up, or shut up!

Oh, the irony!

You are making the claims, you back them up.

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:08 pm

I'm not character assinating, I'm merely suggesting your either mentally ill or mentally deficient, I know nothing about you're character.

As for your "research", if you have to claim a conspiracy to back up the non existent evidence then your in real trouble aren't you? You claim that these pictures exist, but you also claim that there is a conspiracy to not release them? So if they haven't been released how do you know whats in them?

You say the pictures are easy to find on the web, but you were also certain the US detonated a 50Mt nuclear bomb, so if it's all the same to you I'll wait for the links.

So to use your own words Norval

Put up, or shut up!

Show us some craters.

As for who I am, well I haven't hidden myself, for a top researcher like yourself you should be able to track me down in no time. A few carefully chosen Google searches and you'll find me in bright shiny colour.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Hey Crater,
When you hve the time, you should compose a responce with approx 20 to 25 links to separate individual crater images that depict what you are eluding to. This might append the controversy better. (But then who knows, some people might nees 50 separate crater images to be convinced and others are never convinced.)
Everyone, feel free to chime in,
?How many separate crater image links (one image link per crater) will it take for you to feel craterchains isn't just a real HooHaa but might in fact be doing a serious investigation?

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:31 pm

The number of craters is irrelevant, its the fraction that is important. To be convinced I need to see thousands of random craters, and out of that random selection I need to see more than you would expect to be unusual.

So essentially we need a monte-carlo simulation of the crater impacts of a surface, say of the moon. Taking into account all of the physics. We then have some method of determining a criterior for which ones are "strange".
We then look at the real moon and see if we see what we expect. If the number or distribution of craters is different then we have evidence for something else going on.

3 examples of strange craters chosen out of millions is not convincing science. In science in general you need to have a 3sigma detection to be convinced about anything, that is that there is a less than ~1% chance that the result is due to pure random statistical errors. Even when you have this though you can still be wrong if you have some systematics that affect what your measuring.

However, I don't think Norval is going to bother using maths and science when he can just cry "conspiracy".

I'd still like to see at least a few supposedly unnatural craters though.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:37 pm

Look at atomic weapons testing grounds, or whats left of them.

astro, yer a phoney.

Norval

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:22 pm

Norval you disappoint me, I have given you plenty of clues in my posts as to my identity, I'm not trying to keep it a secret, if you guess correctly I will own up.

To reiterate, I'm a PhD student in astronomy in the UK, I have published literature in the mainstream astronomical publications, as I have said a simple google search will find me.

But the fact of my anonymity does not detract from the fact that you haven't yet presented any evidence to back up your claims, or even any pictures.

As I said before :

You claim that these pictures exist, but you also claim that there is a conspiracy to not release them? So if they haven't been released how do you know whats in them?

And

Show us some craters.

You misunderstand my motivations, I'm here to learn, I'm willing to learn from you if you have anything that isn't just fantasy to share.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:38 pm

uh huh, sure "astro", sure. We believe yah, uh huh.

Like you, I have given "hints" as to where we find our images. Really we have given you several links to hundreds of them. All you do is ignore.

Norval

AlmightyDave · Post by **AlmightyDave** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:13 pm

craterchains wrote:uh huh, sure "astro", sure. We believe yah, uh huh.

Like you, I have given "hints" as to where we find our images. Really we have given you several links to hundreds of them. All you do is ignore.

Norval

I have been following this discussion during my off time and have a few things to say.

Norval, It's almost like you don't understand how science works. If you make a controversial claim you are supposed to back it up with evidence*. A convincing argument would take something like the following form:

1. How many multiple ringed craters would you expect to find by random chance? (hint: computer simulation is the way to go here)
2. How many of these multiple ringed craters have you seen? is the fraction significantly higher than predicted by random chance? (hint: you need to do a thorough and complete survey of the literature)
3. Can you discount a geological explanation (like this one) as a reason for multiple ring craters to exist. (hint: you need a real understanding of physics)

If you were to answer all three questions in a thorough and logical way then the scientific community at large (and I'm sure certain people on these boards

) would take great interest.

Of course if all you want is attention then keep on ranting and raving like a mad man.

*I will make a special note that "we have pictures but aren't going to show you" does not constitute evidence.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:31 am

Norval

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:26 am

Correct me if I'm missing the point on this thread, and I really do not wish to engage in tabloid pandering, but if someone wants to see Multi-ringed craters and an explanation of their existence go here:

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/geo ... crater.htm

No one is hiding or covering them up.

As for bombs, weapons ... a fairy tale invented to explain natural events void of science.

Bombs and weapons fire would not produce a random impact patterns in placement or crater size. There is no unexploded ordinances or debris of any kind. Why would there be a reason someone/thing would travel to Neptune and try to blast apart Proteus, a cold little rock, or Mercury, a hot big rock?

Craterchains, (not the person) are cause by rotating, loosely adhered, soft-bodies asteroids braking up shortly before impact. Simple proven science.

I made my point and will add nothing else to this nonsense thread.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:40 am

Thank you.

Norval