Starship Asterisk*

I can't find the post which contains the first quoted sentence - can you tell me where it is please, and who posted it?

Me. Guess I didn't get the tags quite correct. But I took it that you could have figured that out.

I'm not sure why that distant and poorly studied moon would be the place to start ... we have essentially no restrictions on detailed, in situ research into terrestrial craters; if we wish to study impact cratering in the absence of a significant atmosphere, we have many kg of lunar material, collected in situ and in the form of meteorites. And some bodies 'with very little gravity' and with obvious craters have been studied much more closely than Hyperion - Eros, Deimos, and Phobos, for example.

Deimos, and Phobos are ok by me for good examples of very low gravity.

Why should craters on Hyperion be different from craters on the Earth, Moon, Eros, or Phobos? What is it about craters on the Earth, Moon, Eros, and Phobos that rules them out as way-stations to addressing the question in the OP?

Obvious lack of gravity to accelerate the space junk onto small bodies.

Could you please summarise the logic of your claim?

I repeat again and again, and again, and again, and again, , , , not ALL so called impactors would be traveling at velocities sufficient to destroy them. There should be a scale of impactors showing them from sitting on the surface, to slightly indented in the surface, to slightly cratered with impactor showing in the crater, to a bigger and bigger cratering till you finally do have speeds fast enough to turn such impactors to bits and pieces.

Specifically, within the framework of the "pat answer", how could there be any "visable surviving impactors"?

If you only consider such impacts happening at HYPER velocities you wont find any, but the truth is that all are NOT going at such speeds in relationship to each other.

Chains, both you and FieryIce have put forth a darn good point and that is indeed the bottom line.
Enough of this / certain peoples / poking fun at this question please!
Not all of these dudes were traveling at hyper velocities. Where are the
/ ANY / of the impactors. Seems to me there should be a gang of them.
Where are they???

FieryIce wrote:What I found/find fascinating with the examination of cratering is all the examples at our fingertips. Columbia pieces sitting on the ground, some metal penetrated the ground but no craters, meteors going through roofs of house, through a car trunk and sitting on the floor or bouncing off a photocopier and sitting on the floor or an airplane falling out of the sky leaving a skid and scorch mark in the ground but no crater to speak of unless there is something volatile with the plane like fuel that explodes.

Isn't that great that we have an atmosphere? Isn't it?

FieryIce wrote:What I found/find fascinating with the examination of cratering is all the examples at our fingertips. Columbia pieces sitting on the ground, some metal penetrated the ground but no craters, meteors going through roofs of house, through a car trunk and sitting on the floor or bouncing off a photocopier and sitting on the floor or an airplane falling out of the sky leaving a skid and scorch mark in the ground but no crater to speak of unless there is something volatile with the plane like fuel that explodes.
Nereid I think you have to study craters a bit more before you can challenge anyone on where are the impactors, better yet I would suggest you talk to Mrs. E Shoemaker about the research Eugene had done otherwise you’re just making noise.

As has already been noted, the Earth's atmosphere does make a difference, as does the speed (relative to the ground) of any body (mass > a few grams, say) at a height of ~100 km.

For meteorites whose falls have been observed, do you have any data on the distribution of masses of these?

From radar or optical observations of meteor trails, what is the distribution of speeds at the top of the atmosphere? What are the estimated speeds at the bottom of those trails?

For impacts on the Moon, how pertinent are the craters on this spherule?

craterchains wrote:

I can't find the post which contains the first quoted sentence - can you tell me where it is please, and who posted it?

Me. Guess I didn't get the tags quite correct. But I took it that you could have figured that out.

Thanks.

Where (in which thread, on what date) did you post this?

I'm not sure why that distant and poorly studied moon would be the place to start ... we have essentially no restrictions on detailed, in situ research into terrestrial craters; if we wish to study impact cratering in the absence of a significant atmosphere, we have many kg of lunar material, collected in situ and in the form of meteorites. And some bodies 'with very little gravity' and with obvious craters have been studied much more closely than Hyperion - Eros, Deimos, and Phobos, for example.

Deimos, and Phobos are ok by me for good examples of very low gravity.

Why should craters on Hyperion be different from craters on the Earth, Moon, Eros, or Phobos? What is it about craters on the Earth, Moon, Eros, and Phobos that rules them out as way-stations to addressing the question in the OP?

Obvious lack of gravity to accelerate the space junk onto small bodies.

I'm afraid I have no idea how this answers either of my questions; would you mind answering in more detail please?

Could you please summarise the logic of your claim?

I repeat again and again, and again, and again, and again, , , , not ALL so called impactors would be traveling at velocities sufficient to destroy them.

What is the expected distribution of velocities of 'so called impactors'?

How is such a distribution derived or determined?

What is the relationship between velocity and destruction of 'so called impactors'?

There should be a scale of impactors showing them from sitting on the surface, to slightly indented in the surface, to slightly cratered with impactor showing in the crater, to a bigger and bigger cratering till you finally do have speeds fast enough to turn such impactors to bits and pieces.

How does the recently reported meteorite and crater in Peru fit in this cline?

Specifically, within the framework of the "pat answer", how could there be any "visable surviving impactors"?

If you only consider such impacts happening at HYPER velocities you wont find any, but the truth is that all are NOT going at such speeds in relationship to each other.

Evidence?

Perhaps a quantitative definition of 'HYPER velocit[y]' might be a good place to start.

THX1138 wrote:Chains, both you and FieryIce have put forth a darn good point and that is indeed the bottom line.
Enough of this / certain peoples / poking fun at this question please!
Not all of these dudes were traveling at hyper velocities. Where are the
/ ANY / of the impactors. Seems to me there should be a gang of them.
Where are they???

Would you care to take a crack at answering - quantitatively - the questions I have just posted, in response to craterchains and FieryIce?

I reviewed this thread again, and couldn't find anything quantitative.

We have found thousands of meteorites on earth, maybe even hundreds of thousands to millions.

Presumably, a smaller, slower impactor will impart less kinetic energy and leave a smaller crater which can and will erode faster and be erased from existence over the course of a couple of years but leave the impactor to be located, likely buried inside the then filled in crater.

Larger potential impactors will be more influenced by gravity and will thereby be traveling at far greater speeds through the atmosphere, and carry more kinetic energy at the point of impact. This greater energy carries with it the greater likelihood that the potential impactor will be more likely to fracture on impact, and thus, be carried out of the crater along with the ejecta material to be strewn around the crater surround.

But the Earth is subject to all kinds of factors that limit the existence of smaller craters so only the larger ones survive the potential geologic resurfacing that the Earth experiences.

So the likelihood of finding impactors at the bottom of Earthly craters is negligible.


The Moon has similar factors in that smaller impactors will likely bury themselves in the lunar surface and larger ones are more likely to be fractured and ejected to the surrounding area. The Moon however, is not subject to weathering as is the Earth so most craters are well preserved. We only visited 6 locations on the Moon over a 4 year period, most of which only covered the small area that could be walked by an astronaut. Their purpose was not to locate meteorite impactor samples but to locate and recover Lunar Regolith samples. We were there to discover the origins of the Moon and to find if it was made of anything different than the Earth.


Mars is the only other large body we have visited with the means to discover meteorites and though this wasn’t the reason for our rovers it has certainly been among the discoveries. We have found meteorites on the surface of Mars. They look similar to the Iron/Nickel remnants found on Earth. They appear to have been heated and cooled and they have been found on the surface. Mars has similar erosive factors that Earth has but not much rain and a much more tenuous atmosphere so even smaller craters tend to remain around longer but windblown sand and dust does collect in their basins and does eventually fill them in.


But there hasn’t been any imaging taken of any other rock in space at a magnification level that would allow for the distinguishing of any impactors at the bottom of any craters they may contain. We haven’t imaged anything at the 1” per pixel level that would be needed to see impactors on the surface of a distant world/rock/moon.


The impactors might well be there to be found (and some have) or imaged but we haven’t imaged with the needed clarity to locate them. We won’t find impactors the size of cars on Iapetus or Enceladus they don’t survive the impact. We aren’t able to find impactors the size of your living room chair or ottoman because we haven’t resolved them yet (1” per pixel) or they could be any rock that has rolled down slope since the time of impact.

Yes, BMA, that's a pretty good "text book" reply example. Yet it does not address the rest of the missing evidence of "impactors" having caused these craters, ANY of the impactors themselves being seen. 8)

Nereid seems to think her questions are valued as discovery methods, NOT. They are only a tactic to side track the true issue of why we are questioning the lack of ANY so called "impactors" showing up. Just noise.

The Earth Impact Database contains information and images of 164 known Earth craters. One of the more famous and even used as an example here lately is the Barringer crater in Arizona.
Given the following possibilities about the impactor:
Results for computing projectile size from transient crater diameter
Your Inputs:


Crater Descriptor
Final Crater Diameter 1.186 kilometers

Projectile Descriptor
Projectile Density 3000 kg/m3

Impact Conditions
Impact Velocity 17 km/sec
Impact Angle 85 degrees

Target Descriptors
Target Density 3000 kg/m3
Acceleration of Gravity 9.8 m/sec2
Target Type competent rock or saturated soil


Results
The three scaling laws yield the following projectile diameters: (note that diameters assume a spherical projectile)
Yield Scaling 4.04 x 10(1) meters
Pi Scaling (Preferred method!) 3.19 x 10(1) meters
Gault Scaling 7.07 x 10(1) meters
Crater Formation Time 4.89 seconds


Using the Pi Scaling method this impactor would have struck the target with an energy of 7.34 x 10(15) Joules (1.75 MegaTons).

The equivalent of a 1.75 megaton blast would certainly pulverise and eject most of the impactor into the surrounding area though some of the fragments would likely rain down into the crater itself and in deed some small meteor fragments have been found within the crater.

This one in Odessa Texas struck with the following force:

Results for computing projectile size from transient crater diameter
Your Inputs:


Crater Descriptor
Final Crater Diameter 0.168 kilometers

Projectile Descriptor
Projectile Density 3000 kg/m3

Impact Conditions
Impact Velocity 17 km/sec
Impact Angle 85 degrees

Target Descriptors
Target Density 3000 kg/m3
Acceleration of Gravity 9.8 m/sec2
Target Type competent rock or saturated soil


Results
The three scaling laws yield the following projectile diameters: (note that diameters assume a spherical projectile)
Yield Scaling 4.41 meters (about 16' diameter)
Pi Scaling (Preferred method!) 0.26 x 10(1) meters
Gault Scaling 5.28 meters
Crater Formation Time 1.84 seconds


Using the Pi Scaling method this impactor would have struck the target with an energy of 3.99 x 10(12) Joules (9.54 x 10(-4) MegaTons).

Again (I believe 10(-4) MegaTons = kilotons) a 9.54 kiloton blast would also eliminate an impactor that is only 16' diameter. as well as the ejected material. This crater has filled in though so any remnants are likely burried under tons of soil.

This site http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_p.html will help to determine the size and force imparted by any impactor you wish to insert.

The Earth Impact Database site http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/essay.html will give you the crater remnant size. I purposely used the smallest impact sites for illustration as they would impart the least ammount of energy against their remnant impactors.

BMA an interesting thing about cratering simulation programs, if you read the scientific papers published for example by Bottke, Richardson et. al., they state in their paper the simulator has a flaw and cannot accurately recreate the impacts. A newer simulator developed in the UK, in their published paper is also the claim that it’s a nice program but does have a fatal flaw and cannot duplicate cratering impacts correctly. So you can play with simulators all you like, you are not going to get the proper results without the added variable that science does not want to talk about but Military Bomb Damage Assessment is fully aware of.

Like I posted previously, talk to Dr. Eugene Shoemaker's widow about crater geology, she worked side by side with him particularly in Australia and Nevada.

craterchains wrote:Yes, BMA, that's a pretty good "text book" reply example. Yet it does not address the rest of the missing evidence of "impactors" having caused these craters, ANY of the impactors themselves being seen. 8)

Nereid seems to think her questions are valued as discovery methods, NOT. They are only a tactic to side track the true issue of why we are questioning the lack of ANY so called "impactors" showing up. Just noise.

Let's see now ... an Asterisk user could write:

"craterchains seems to think the content of her posts are consistent with scientific methods, NOT. They are only a tactic to side track the true issue of why we are questioning the lack or ANY quantitative analyses. Just noise. "

This sort of thing, obviously, gets us nowhere.

But maybe I missed something; maybe craterchains, or others, has published papers, in relevant peer-reviewed journals, presenting (quantitative) analyses of impactors, craters, etc (supporting craterchains' claims)?

If not, or otherwise anyway, maybe craterchains, or others, has done such (quantitative) analyses, and posted them on the internet (where anyone can read, and check, for themselves)?

Or perhaps craterchains, or others, has an alternative view of what constitutes science, one involving secrecy, absence of (quantitative) analyses, etc?

FieryIce wrote:BMA an interesting thing about cratering simulation programs, if you read the scientific papers published for example by Bottke, Richardson et. al., they state in their paper the simulator has a flaw and cannot accurately recreate the impacts.

References please.

What is the flaw (that they state in their papers)?

A newer simulator developed in the UK, in their published paper is also the claim that it’s a nice program but does have a fatal flaw and cannot duplicate cratering impacts correctly.

References please.

What is the fatal flaw (stated in the published papers)?

So you can play with simulators all you like, you are not going to get the proper results without the added variable that science does not want to talk about but Military Bomb Damage Assessment is fully aware of.

Like I posted previously, talk to Dr. Eugene Shoemaker's widow about crater geology, she worked side by side with him particularly in Australia and Nevada.

Were any of the issues you have alluded to in this thread published in any of Shoemaker's papers? If so, which one(s)?

FieryIce wrote:BMA an interesting thing about cratering simulation programs, if you read the scientific papers published for example by Bottke, Richardson et. al., they state in their paper the simulator has a flaw and cannot accurately recreate the impacts. (snip)

There may be mathematical flaws in these programs but I don't think that the flaws are necessarily fatal though. the problem is Chaos mathematics doesn't allow for the same outcome twice. So the flaw in the simulator program(s) is the assumption that the impactor is spherical and of even relative density. As we know, most (ALL) impactors aren't spherical and have different internal density levels.

Nereid wrote:

FieryIce wrote:BMA an interesting thing about cratering simulation programs, if you read the scientific papers published for example by Bottke, Richardson et. al., they state in their paper the simulator has a flaw and cannot accurately recreate the impacts.

References please.

What is the flaw (that they state in their papers)?

A newer simulator developed in the UK, in their published paper is also the claim that it’s a nice program but does have a fatal flaw and cannot duplicate cratering impacts correctly.

References please.

What is the fatal flaw (stated in the published papers)?

So you can play with simulators all you like, you are not going to get the proper results without the added variable that science does not want to talk about but Military Bomb Damage Assessment is fully aware of.

Like I posted previously, talk to Dr. Eugene Shoemaker's widow about crater geology, she worked side by side with him particularly in Australia and Nevada.

Were any of the issues you have alluded to in this thread published in any of Shoemaker's papers? If so, which one(s)?

Fascinating!
This sort of thing, obviously, gets us nowhere.

Nereid - Although I am but a novice in this new field of discovery, what amazes me the most is your apparent lack of ability to do your own research. You continue to pose questions to posters about their information acquisition, but are unwilling to do any work of your own to investigate the source(s) (which, by the way, they often provide) of their information for validation or to satisfy your "curiousity". If, in fact, it is your job to denounce the posters and/or the information they contribute, then would it not behoove you to do your own "footwork" and obtain the necessary knowledge to post a reply with actual merit rather than derision? I value the new and exciting aspects of original thinkers who pose questions that deserve attention. It is the basis of discovery, is it not? Must we remain stagnant in the acquisition of new information that may have tremendous value that we, as of yet, are unfamiliar of today? Where would our society, such that it is, be without those "new thinkers" or those without "peers" if their conributions were oppressed by those who are of the belief that they "know it all" and no one or nothing else has ANY merit??????

sidekickbobcat wrote:Where would our society, such that it is, be without those "new thinkers" or those without "peers" if their conributions were oppressed by those who are of the belief that they "know it all" and no one or nothing else has ANY merit??????

Exactly where it is today, since things you refer to, were happening in the past, do happen now, and will happen in the future.

Nereid,
The sources of information have been stated. Do your own re-searching.
"There are those that have no peers, they are the top in their fields, they have no equals; only those that are learning from these works, only those that are without accomplishment and contribution, have peers." Norval L. Cunningham 2007.

This so called "theory" of "impactors" having caused all these craters, to include chains of craters in a concise and systematic pattern, and those that have multiple crater walls within walls, can also be theorized with a much higher degree of probability by something else far more familiar to the public, and more specifically war veterans. The only other "theory" or probable explanation that can answer all these questions, without exception, would be that they are made by explosives, and with obvious intent. The implications of such a highly probable cause for these craters, and without the spectrum of "impactors" showing up as they should, only increases the probability that they are caused by explosions. Being that they were caused by explosives instead of impactors demonstrates the obvious reasons you, and others, have responded as you have.

STDD Same tactics, different day, information acquisition and control, IAC. Your failure to discuss the topic and instead attempts to dissuade discussion of the topic by meaningless questionings of non-relevant datum to the topic is duly noted.

The fact remains to all that question, "Where is the spectrum of impactors that should be seen, but are not?" The evidence of all such possible and probable cratering effects, and their causes, should be examined as to what may have made all these craters and left virtually no impactors showing. What, pray tell, is precluding craters caused by explosives?

I would like to introduce Bobbi, AKA sidekickbobcat, she is not a "sockpupet" although we have the same IP address. Dope it out,

sidekickbobcat wrote:Nereid - Although I am but a novice in this new field of discovery, what amazes me the most is your apparent lack of ability to do your own research. You continue to pose questions to posters about their information acquisition, but are unwilling to do any work of your own to investigate the source(s) (which, by the way, they often provide) of their information for validation or to satisfy your "curiousity". If, in fact, it is your job to denounce the posters and/or the information they contribute, then would it not behoove you to do your own "footwork" and obtain the necessary knowledge to post a reply with actual merit rather than derision? I value the new and exciting aspects of original thinkers who pose questions that deserve attention. It is the basis of discovery, is it not? Must we remain stagnant in the acquisition of new information that may have tremendous value that we, as of yet, are unfamiliar of today? Where would our society, such that it is, be without those "new thinkers" or those without "peers" if their conributions were oppressed by those who are of the belief that they "know it all" and no one or nothing else has ANY merit??????

Hmm ... in terms of research and investigation, how about this Physics Forums thread?

Of course, the 'craterchains', 'FieryIce', and 'Nereid' there may have no relationship at all with users with the same names here.

Similarly, the 'sidekickbobcat', 'craterchains', and 'FieryIce' here may have no relationship to each other.

Or, in terms of presenting any research material on the internet at all, I wonder what relevance the following has*?

Summary for 2004
"Threshold".

It has been agreed upon by [...] that no further [catina] research update on the web pages will be posted. Furthermore no subsequent findings will be publicly displayed on the research web sites. This is our response because of the tactics used against this research for information acquisition and control. These tactics are being used against all that seem to be asking the right questions looking for truth. The real key is information acquisition.

We are willing to continue discussion with the proper authorities, provided specific criteria are met.

But on to the specifics.

I just read this thread again, paying particular attention to all posts by craterchains.

Apart from the OP, there seem to be no references of any kind, despite several requests, to anything to do with any claims, assertions, etc made by craterchains^.

As you're (relatively) new to The Asterisk, sidekickbobcat, may I suggest that you read the Rules for posting to the Asterisk Café; in particular, the following (my bold):

3. No threads about conspiracy theories, astrology, magic, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. [...] In particularly egregious cases, the thread starter will be banned. This is a scientific forum, if you want to talk about such subjects, there are many other message boards on the internet to post about such things.

The original question (Where are ANY of the impactors?) has been answered, many times, by many folk, in terms of the contemporary, scientific understanding of meteors, craters, etc.

My questions were intended to elicit science-related aspects of craterchains' ideas that he may not have posted yet.

But perhaps you are right; perhaps I did miss "the source(s) (which, by the way, they often provide) of their information" in craterchains' posts (other than the OP) - would you be so kind as to tell me the date and time of such posts, in this thread, where such sources may be found?

*Thanks to astro_uk, for his post, in August 2006, in this thread for the link that lead me to this.
^FieryIce's posts do contain some material that might help, though no references.

FieryIce wrote:[snip]

Like I posted previously, talk to Dr. Eugene Shoemaker's widow about crater geology, she worked side by side with him particularly in Australia and Nevada.

Would you be kind enough to provide us with relevant extracts from conversations you have had with Carolyn Shoemaker, on crater geology (provided, of course, that she has given you consent to make such publicly available)?

Alternatively, which of her publications would you recommend reading, concerning crater geology?

Finally, should anyone reading this post get the opportunity, what questions do you suggest they ask her (concerning crater geology)?

CC,
Just a couple of other interesting facts concerning comparative impact/detonation yields of nuclear weapons vs. meteor impacts.

(some images are disturbing)
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/record.html
The bomb little boy was dropped on Hiroshima. It had a comparitive yield of only 13-16kt. Fat Man was slightly larger at about 21kt. These comparatively small explosions caused enormous ammounts of devistation for such small yield warheads.
The current US aresonal of thermonuclear devices have the following yields:
Little Boy.........13-16kt (Hiroshima)
Fat Man............21k (Nagasaki)
The W-76.........100 kiloton
The B-61.........350 kiloton
The W-87.........300 kiloton
The W-88.........475 kiloton
Ivy King...........500 kiloton
Orange Herald.700 kiloton
The B-83.........1.2 megaton (the most power currently active)
The B-53.........9 megaton
Castle Bravo....15 megaton (the most powerful tested by the US)
Tsar Bomba.....50 megaton (the most powerful ever tested USSR)

Impactor size for cratering though depends on size/density of the impactor and angle of impact. a more direct blow requires a smaller impactor and yields less energy.

To create a crater that is 1k dia.
for an Iron impactor,
90deg impact it needs to be 190m dia and hits with the force of 991 kiloton
for a dense rock impactor
90deg impact it needs to be 289m dia and hits with the force of 1.31 megaton
for a porous rock impactor
90deg impact it needs to be 388m dia and hits with the force of 1.59 megaton

At the other end of the spectrum
Iron
10deg impact needs to be 401m dia and hits with the force of 9.35 megaton
dense rock
10deg impact needs to be 610m dia and hits with the force of 12.3 megaton
Porous rock
10deg impact needs to be 821m dia and hits with the force of 15 megaton

So, if Barringer crater was made by a porous rock meteorite that was 820 meters diameter and struck at a 10deg angle, it would have the explosive force of our most powerful thermonuclear device ever tested (in the US), 15 megatons. I doubt anything would be left of the impactor.

If the impactor were dense rock that was 307 meters diameter and came in at a 60 deg angle, it would have the explosive force of a 1.57 megaton device, still more energy than our most powerful thermonuclear device in active service. I still doubt anything would remain of the impactor.


In short, the biggest Nuke we have is insufficient to create one of the smallest craters on earth. Nukes aren't the answer, Impactors carry the sufficient force needed, not only to excavate the crater but also to destroy its cause.

CC this is the most damming evidence that I’ve read, thank you BMAONE23 for doing the necessary work to compile that post.
CC, I don’t know if these figures are representative of air burst / space burst only but even if so I would hardly think that any one would place a chain of any kind of explosives on some dead rock just to make some craters in it. Your thoughts on this are welcome.

On another note, should the time come when it would be time to
drop the idea of otherworldly intelligence creating these chains
I would hope that you would accept that and not drag on a dead
Issue for the sake of trying to save face, ok CC.

"On another note, should the time come when it would be time to
drop the idea of otherworldly intelligence creating these chains
I would hope that you would accept that and not drag on a dead
Issue for the sake of trying to save face, ok CC."

Hey THX 1138,

If you succeed with this sentence then can you try it on Harry? With some modification of course. He is so lost tho. He is saying weird stuff like ( Black hole are releasing rejuvinate matter in the univers?) on one hand and ( Back hole have so much gravity that we will never know what's in it?) on the other hand. There are thousand of those weird nonsense thing writen in here now since he have made thousands post bout it.


Oups... may be Nereid keep him here as "the Clown of the forum". Gee i miss that. Sry Nereid. I will let the Clown doing is Clown stufff.

Go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go, go alias go,...

If CC will allow for the likelihood that individual craters are formed by impactors that are subsequently obliterated in the resulting multimegaton explosions then I will also allow that it is highly unlikely, say 1 in 1 billion, that an impactor will break up into nearly perfectly spaced, uniformly sized, boulders that strike the surface in perfectly straight lines.

CC likely has merit in the cause for examining these structures up close, first hand, to determine the cause of such an enigmatic occurance. See if there is Glass lining the craters as in energy weapon heating, or residual radioactivity as in possible nuclear explosive mining operations.

Perhaps on our next visit to the Moon. There are many such structures there.

Nereid - Although I am but a novice in this new field of discovery, what amazes me the most is your apparent lack of ability to do your own research.

Some research is not beyond us sidekickbobcat/Craterchains.

To reply to your point: the fact is that while Nereid and most of the other people on the board are experts in some field we are not experts in all fields, we also tend to be extremely busy, we could start from Google and work our way up to find the necessary papers or we can do the most efficient thing and ask. I'm an astronomer, but I work on extragalactic objects, so my knowledge of planetary phenomena is only slightly better than the average well read person, so I don't know usually know all the relevant papers in this sub field. If someone can make life easier by providing links or references to the relevant papers it makes things simpler, and faster, for all concerned.