Concise Systematic Crater Chains, Your Take?

[xfahctor]

except that we have far more evidence of funny business on 9-11 than we do for a war in the solar system.


What evidence do you have / see so far for war in sol system ?

So far? None.

[xfahctor]

How is it that they are making straight lines of craters of equal / near equal size?

Wouldnt that require objects with mostly identical  shape / size / mass ?

How would you describe what conditions  are required to  make CSCC ?

Sorry, if maybe I asked before... sometimes   that happens

But once you start examining photo by photo, and start looking at the relative measurements, they are NOT in fact of equal size, depthor spacing. Spacing varies,some over lap, some do not, some are bigger, most lines of craters are all different lengths and impact counts. Also, don't forget the size of what your looking at. What looks like a few hundred yards long and several yards wide, is actualy in many cases, miles long and miles wide.
 What conditions do I describe that create these? Impacts from asteroids, comets and other space rubble, untill a more demonstrable theory somes along.
 
Note to JacksonHolly.....

I am by my own admitting,  not very well informed on the EU theory in detail so I am really not in much position to discuss it intelligently. I have read a few papers on it, much of which went right over my head and I couldn't possibly recall the writers, though I did however follow a very leangthy debate and discussion on it in a forum among a bunch of physicists. Mind numbing but still pretty intersting in a geeky sort of way. It seemed to me the proponets of the EU theory didn't quite make their case very well, everything they offered was pretty much demonstrated to be somewhat incomplete and loosley formed and in most areas, all observations of theirs seemed to be still solidly supported by the standard models.
 This isn't something I consider in the woo woo area or psudeo-science, quite the opposite, it is a theory based on observation, just from what I saw, some incorrect or incomplete observation. It may well one day become the standard model, it certainly isn't lacking in support or scientific methodology. It just hasn't been solidly demonstrated yet from what I gather.

[Waipio]

But once you start examining photo by photo, and start looking at the relative measurements, they are NOT in fact of equal size, depth or spacing. Spacing varies,some over lap, some do not, some are bigger, most lines of craters are all different lengths and impact counts

True, that is why I said "craters of equal / near equal size".  

(That reminds me discussing controlled demolition re 9111....I learned the importance of  saying "close to free fall rate"  instead of "free fall rate".)

Your two  sentences I just quoted here accurately describe lines of impact craters caused by aerial ordnance, strafing or bombing.

[Jackson Holly]

xfahctor:

The idea of electrical discharges between planetary bodies certainly isn't a new one ... I first read about it in a Velikovsky book back in the 70s. Perhaps I can entertain the idea more than others might because I am so unschooled in the accepted theories!

However, the electric universe theory holds up much better for me than the purely gravitational model, which as we all know is falling apart (excuse the pun) before our very eyes for lack of cohesion (another pun!).

Did anyone really ever buy that ridiculous theory of dark matter anyway?

[xfahctor]

Did anyone really ever buy that ridiculous theory of dark matter anyway?

funny you should say that. I came across an article the other day. One that suggest that we either do not at all understand "dark matter" or that there are cracks n our theories on it. It involves a study done on 28 galaxies of various types and sizes. The problem with Dark Matter, as indicated in this short article, is that based on an analysis of "28 galaxies of all shapes and sizes", it seems there is "always five times more dark matter than normal matter where the dark matter density has dropped to one-quarter of its central value".  It puts forth in a round about way that as a result of the data, that there might be  an "undiscovered force of nature working between the dark matter and the normal matter...".

This is counterd by a few physicists in a discussion I found the article in though.  some seemed more receptive to at least that we may not completely understand what dark matter is or that it is only a concept that we have yet to propperly defined.

One thing that tells me, whether it is "dark matter" or not, that there exists something we can't see yet, is the fact that the universe is not just expanding, but accelerates as it does and the gravity lensing we observe when looking at deep field space.

I think "dark matter" is pretty much a buzz word for matter and or force we just don't understand yet.

edit: forgot the link to the article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17892-galaxy-study-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html

[xfahctor]

True, that is why I said "craters of equal / near equal size".  

(That reminds me discussing controlled demolition re 9111....I learned the importance of  saying "close to free fall rate"  instead of "free fall rate".)

Your two  sentences I just quoted here accurately describe lines of impact craters caused by aerial ordnance, strafing or bombing.

Either way, I can't see making the leap from something that looesely resembles bomb craters to a solar system wide war.

[Waipio]

Either way, I can't see making the leap from something that looesely resembles bomb craters to a solar system wide war.

I, and veterans of aerial combat disagree with 'loosely'

To put it simply, IMO, what these CSCC resemble most are the results of aerial runs of bombing or strafing.

Explaining how CSCC  are  created in nature as often as we see them in pics  NASA has released  would put this theory to rest. 

Can you  explain ?

 

[Jackson Holly]

xfahctor:

...there exists something we can't see yet.

Sounds like God! 

It's been known for a long time that there seems not to be sufficient matter in the seeable universe to hold things together via gravity, in the way that we observe it ... a tiny fraction of what is needed as a matter of fact. Thus, an invisible / undetectable 'matter' provides the 'glue'. 

Just a few minutes at http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm will start to make all those old, Victorian/Einsteinian theories seem awfully quaint.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Waipio:

What do you make of the Martian photo I posted above?

[Unintelligable Name]

Just a few minutes at http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm will start to make all those old, Victorian/Einsteinian theories seem awfully quaint.

That film is a joke.

[Jackson Holly]

^^^  What film, Chem? Something put out by Thunderbolts?

[Waipio]

Quote from: Jackson Holly on Today at 04:33:53 PM


Waipio:

What do you make of the Martian photo I posted above?

Patterns I see there seem to have little or nothing in common with my understanding of  the definition of  Concise Systematic Crater Chains.

I would not include it in a set of pics about CSCC

[Waipio]

re CSCC

Quote from: xfahctor
and one that happens to have a few criss crossing surface features, which are by no means unusual or unnatural in the solar system.

xfahctor,
Did you revisit that pic?
If so did you see that those crisscrossing features are crater chains in straight or nearly straight lines?

 

[Jackson Holly]

Patterns I see there seem to have little or nothing in common with my understanding of  the definition of  Concise Systematic Crater Chains.

So, what are they ... random impacts? Strafing craters?

These are the patterns produced by certain electrical discharges.

Sometimes they produce more concise near-exact chains.

BTW, I think of the Wars in Heaven and other biblical/sacred text descriptions as probably vaguely remembered natural 'aerial' phenomena ... planetary discharges. AND ... I don't discount for a minute actual Star Wars in the remote past.

[Jackson Holly]

There are a whole array of lab reproducible effects on surfaces caused by electrical discharges ... the first link I posted starts to get into that ... CSCC is one effect.

This is another ... check out the complex dendritic networks on the Martian South Pole:



Geologists have dubbed these formations at Mars’ southern pole “spiders.” But no one seems able to explain them. Credit: NASA/Mars Global Surveyor


On the left: An electrical discharge to a negatively charged surface, recorded on a photographic plate. On the right: A Martian “spider.”

Articles here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060724spiders.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060726spiders2.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Waipio]

So, what are they ... random impacts? Strafing craters?

Dunno.  
I bet that answering that requires some careful analysis and comparison of   details like ejecta patterns etc.
 

BTW, I think of the Wars in Heaven and other biblical/sacred text descriptions as probably vaguely remembered natural 'aerial' phenomena ... planetary discharges.

Seems some the accounts are not so vague and more like eyewitness. More importantly they are not limited to craft seen in sky because they include landing and interaction. Maybe someone can chime in with refs to Bible and Sanskrit Vedic scriptures

AND ... I don't discount for a minute actual Star Wars in the remote past.

Across all that time high tech civilizations could rise and disappear by the  dozens(?)  Millions ?

It'd be a waste of space to leave space unused. Too bad war is one of the uses for it.

[Waipio]

There are a whole array of lab reproducible effects on surfaces caused by electrical discharges ... the first link I posted starts to get into that ... CSCC is one effect.

This is another ... check out the complex dendritic networks on the Martian South Pole:

CSCC in those images? 

I dont see any.

...and again, details of crater characteristics matter as much or more than birds eye views.
I recall reading somewhere distinct differences between those claimed as EU theory  and those  claimed as CSCC.

I dont have that info yet, but I recall that after reading it I saw no point in looking further  into EU theory to explain CSCC.

[Jackson Holly]

Waipio:

Seems some the accounts are not so vague and more like eyewitness.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. By 'vaguely remembered' I just meant that the stories from actual eyewitnesses have been passed down through many generations to us ... are almost forgotten ... have gained mythical status.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many corroborating links embedded in the original here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050504eu-1.htm



Caption: Upper Left: Complex of giant lunar rilles or trenches.
Right: Laboratory electron beam showing deflection by magnet.
Lower Left: painting by Benjamin West,"Benjamin Franklin Drawing Electricity from the Sky".
Center: Artist illustration of electric discharge vortex on lunar surface.
Right: "volcano" (electric discharge) on the Jovian moon Io.


The Electric Universe: Part II
Discharges and Scars


A universe that is 99% plasma requires a new vision of electrical connectivity—galaxies, stars, nebulas, invisible “double layers”—joined by webs of circuitry. Such a universe also demands that we reconsider all prior beliefs about the evolution of planetary surfaces and the nature of atmospheric phenomena on planets and on the Sun.

Throughout the twentieth century, astronomers relied upon gravitational mechanics and the kinetics of gases to explain things observed in the heavens. But this vision of the universe is increasingly at odds with new data returned by better telescopes and enhanced technologies.

Laboratory experiments with electric currents in plasma show that the currents can appear in three modes—dark, glow and arc—depending on the voltage and charge density. In a laboratory gas-discharge tube (pictured above), voltage and charge density vary non-linearly between the electrodes and produce segments that are alternately dark and glowing. The arc mode, which has a very high charge density, is used industrially for precision machining.

The degree of current filamentation depends on the density of the medium through which the current passes. For similar currents, one passing through a thin atmosphere will tend to produce a single columnar or tubular channel that spins around its axis. In the glow mode, this channel looks like a tornado of fire. We can see examples of this in the penumbra of a sunspot. The solar discharge is quenched in the umbra (the dark center) of a sunspot, giving us a side view of the “electric vortices” whose tops make up the “granular” appearance of the photosphere. In the dark mode, these “electric vortices” can become visible when the strong electric field pulls air, water or dust into their rotation, producing dust devils, waterspouts, and tornadoes.

A current passing through a thick atmosphere will tend to branch into a web of filaments. Some of these filaments will form concentric circles around the primary axis. Others will stretch radially away. In combination, they produce arrays that resemble a spider’s web and are therefore termed “arachnoids”. Such features are particularly common around the equator of the planet Venus, suggesting intense electrical activity in the past.

When a circuit passes through a solid body, the current will erode material from or deposit material on the surface where the arc touches down. It is essential therefore that planetary scientists be willing to consider the evidence of electrical surface erosion, which leaves distinctive scarring patterns: The pits or craters left by electric arcs are usually circular because the electric forces constrain the arc to strike at a right angle to the surface. Because the arc is composed of two (or more) filaments rotating around the axis, material is removed as with a drill bit, leaving steep sides and a “pinched up” rim of debris. If the filaments are sufficiently separated, they may leave a nipple of material in the center, as is seen in lunar craters that have central peaks. Material in the bottom of the crater, as also the material removed, will be electrically heated, possibly burned, and considerably melted.

If the surface is an anode (positively charged in the exchange), the arc will tend to stick in one place. This results in increased melting, and the electrical forces within the field of the arc may lift the surface to form a “blister,” called a fulgamite. There will still be a crater—or several overlapping craters—at the top. For example, a lightning strike will often raise a fulgamite on the metal cap of a lightning arrestor. At a larger scale, fulgamites appear as “domes” on Venus and as pedestal craters on Mars. Even larger scale examples are the Martian Olympus Mons and the so-called “volcanoes” on the Tharsis Rise.

If the surface is a cathode (negatively charged), the arc will tend to move across the surface. After striking, usually at a high point, and eroding a crater, the arc may jump to a new high point—the rim of the new crater is a most likely target. The abundance of small craters centered on the rims of larger ones testifies to this predictable behavior. As the arc travels, it may erode a series of craters in a line, appearing as a chain of craters. If the craters in these chains overlap, the effect is a steep-sided trench with scalloped edges. The arc may erode a trench for a distance and then jump some distance away before eroding another trench. These “dashed line” trenches will usually have circular ends and constant widths. All of these patterns occur in great abundance on the surface of Mars, a point we intend to fully demonstrate in coming Pictures of the Day.

A current running under the surface may heat the rock suddenly enough to cause a line explosion: The shock wave will blow out material to each side, producing levees, and the electrical erosion from the arc will leave a smaller, more sinuous trench in the bottom of the shock-generated trench. This form was first noticed on the Moon as the lunar rilles, but the pattern is also repeated across the surface of the Jovian moon Europa.

Advocates of the electrical discharge and electrical scarring hypothesis emphasize its greater unity and coherence over a broader range of data. The theory is empirically grounded, testable under laboratory conditions, and directly applicable at all scales of observations, from the microscopic pitting of tektites and concretions to solar vortices and the knotted polar jets of stars and galaxies.

[Jackson Holly]

This is the EU discussion concerning the CSCC from GALE's OP:


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Crater Chains

Overlapping, central peaks, clean excavation, melting, and "pinched up" rims are all signs of electrical discharge machining for these crater chains.

The chances of having an impacting body break up to form a neatly graded and spaced line of objects that might provide this series of overlapping craters is practically zero.

Instead, crater chains are a common result of electric arcs passing over a cathode surface. With slight variations in the current or the surface, the arc may stop jumping from one crater to the next and cut a trench instead. In this example (ABOVE) on Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, the craters overlap so closely that the distinction between "crater chain" and "straight rille" blurs. There are sections of this crater chain that could pass for a rille. When examined closely, the smaller rilles in the image have scalloped sections that could pass for overlapping craters.

Notice that the sizes of the craters are similar, with an increase toward the middle. From an Electric Universe point of view, this size gradation is a reflection of the initial increase in current as an arc becomes established, followed by a decrease as the arc quenches. In lightning strikes with multiple strokes, the middle strokes are usually the strongest.

Notice also that many of the craters retain their central peaks. The arc that carves a crater is a Birkeland current consisting of a pair of filaments that rotate around the current's axis. If the crater is large enough, the two filaments will not meet in the center, leaving a central spire intact.

Because the arc lifts material from the surface, the excavation is left relatively clean. Only a small portion of the detritus falls back around and in the crater or rille. The "collapsed lava tube" explanation of rilles fails on this account: The remains of the tube's roof are not inside the rille.  "Missing" debris is one defining characteristic that distinguishes electrical erosion from mechanical processes: The debris is not really "missing", it¹s just not where other processes typically leave it
.

Melting is another defining characteristic of electrical erosion. Although extensive melting is ascribed to impacts, impacts in fact produce little melting. The particles of rubble may be immersed in hot gases from the impact, but the heat dissipates too quickly for conduction to carry much of it into the particles. Electrical erosion, on the contrary, generates heat inside the eroded particles, in the manner of a heating element on an electric stove. A general expectation of the Electric Universe is that the floors of craters and rilles will show extensive glassification. Unfortunately, it can only be confirmed by on-site observations.

A final observation is that many craters appear to have their rims "pinched up," rather than "rolled over" or splattered as would be expected from debris thrown out by an impact. Many rilles, too, have "pinched up" dikes along their edges.  This emphasizes the indication from missing debris that the erosional forces were directed upward.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050810crater.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[xfahctor]

I, and veterans of aerial combat disagree with 'loosely'

To put it simply, IMO, what these CSCC resemble most are the results of aerial runs of bombing or strafing.

Explaining how CSCC  are  created in nature as often as we see them in pics  NASA has released  would put this theory to rest. 

Can you  explain ?

They already have a quite plausable and demonstrated explanation, asteroids and other debre. Even if the looked exactly like bomb craters (albight huge bomb craters, 45 killometer wide), it's still too big a leap to go from that to alien wars, there is absolutely nothing supporting the theory. You can't even call it a theory, because a theory is based on evidence and in this case, there is simply no evidence. All we have are craters, no evidence that they were formed by weapons. As I said to Gale, it would be like seeing satelite photos of dry river beds on earth and just assuming they were made by pre historic escavating machines.

[Gale]

Wow somebody's been busy since my last visit.

I addressed the EU theory, the two things that nullify that theory is distance and vacuum.

What do these Concise and Systematic Crater Chains most resemble?

What computer programs could or would produce these in line crater chains?

[Jackson Holly]

^ ^ ^

I addressed the EU theory, the two things that nullify that theory is distance and vacuum

How so Gale?

[xfahctor]

Wow somebody's been busy since my last visit.

I addressed the EU theory, the two things that nullify that theory is distance and vacuum.

What do these Concise and Systematic Crater Chains most resemble?

What computer programs could or would produce these in line crater chains?

If we are trying to determian the cause of these craters in a scientific manner, than what they resemble is relatively irelevent. All that gives us is an investigative subject, what they look like doesn't give us evidence.

As to what computer program could create them... do you mean like a graphics program or something? create a picture of them or litteraly create the craters themselves?

[Norval]

It seems kind of funny that they think just about everything is caused by these wondrous gigantic electrical bolts, including volcanoes, that no one has ever seen outside of a lab on a very, very, very small scale by comparison.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm

What remains is that the only known things that DO produce these kind of in line and some curved chains of craters are our own modern weapons of war. Watch some you tube documentaries on weapons damage for a comparison and you will see just how similar they are.

Keep in mind of course that TPTB do NOT want anyone to think and reason about a very recent war that took place in our solar system.

The only known computer programs that can produce these CSCCs are weapons control programs.

[Waipio]

Quote from: Waipio on November 13, 2009, 04:30:47 PM

I, and veterans of aerial combat disagree with 'loosely'

To put it simply, IMO, what these CSCC resemble most are the results of aerial runs of bombing or strafing.

Explaining how CSCC  are  created in nature as often as we see them in pics  NASA has released  would put this theory to rest.

Can you  explain ?

They already have a quite plausable and demonstrated explanation, asteroids and other debre.

Thanks but I asked for an explanation of how these straight line CSCC would occur in  nature.

This unrealistic explanation has some detail regarding the how: 
"Maybe if they were identical ball bearings tossed from some kinda mechanical holder, they would land in a straight line every time."

Not suggesting ball bearings, but an explanation with more detail than '..asteroids and other debre'  is what I am looking for.

When I look at  these three....
1)  In post #10 Fragment  Spread is omitted when Shoemaker Levy is introduced to explain CSCC.
2)  In post #11 Fragment Spread is introduced.
3)  "If we are trying to determian the cause of these craters in a scientific manner, than what they resemble is relatively irelevent."

..I dont see anything like this...
"They already have a quite plausable and demonstrated explanation, asteroids and other debre."

Can anyone  explain how, in detail, asteroids and other debris (nature) can create these straight line CSCC, please ?.  

[Gale]

Can anyone  explain how, in detail, asteroids and other debris (nature) can create these straight line CSCC, please ?.

They can't Waipio.

[xfahctor]

They can't Waipio.

By sepaerating out, fragmenting in zero gravity, and landing one behind the other in the order they were traveling in.  This is what we have observed. We HAVE NOT observed aliens firing weapons and causing them however. So right now, we have far more evidence they are natural than we do that they were from alien weapons.

[xfahctor]

It seems kind of funny that they think just about everything is caused by these wondrous gigantic electrical bolts, including volcanoes, that no one has ever seen outside of a lab on a very, very, very small scale by comparison.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm

What remains is that the only known things that DO produce these kind of in line and some curved chains of craters are our own modern weapons of war. Watch some you tube documentaries on weapons damage for a comparison and you will see just how similar they are.

Keep in mind of course that TPTB do NOT want anyone to think and reason about a very recent war that took place in our solar system.

The only known computer programs that can produce these CSCCs are weapons control programs.

Was wondering when you were going to get here, been expecting you. Welcome to PP.

What we have observed is asteroids and other like debre breaking up and crashing in such a manner. what we HAVE NOT observed is aliens firing weapons and creating these things..
 Ok, since your here too now, what do you have to offer as evidence to support your theory besides craters that resemble munitions craters and biblical text?

And incidentaly, do you believe that "TPTB" are the only ones who study astronomy and astrophysics? and that somehow, there has been a multi century spanning conspiricy to completely develop the laws of physics in such a way that physicists and astronomers studying these things would not know what was really happening? And that such a conspiricy also managed to somehow actually effect and change the results of the physics in action we observe every day in order to hide things?

[xfahctor]

Thanks but I asked for an explanation of how these straight line CSCC would occur in  nature.

This unrealistic explanation has some detail regarding the how: 
"Maybe if they were identical ball bearings tossed from some kinda mechanical holder, they would land in a straight line every time."

Not suggesting ball bearings, but an explanation with more detail than '..asteroids and other debre'  is what I am looking for.

When I look at  these three....
1)  In post #10 Fragment  Spread is omitted when Shoemaker Levy is introduced to explain CSCC.
2)  In post #11 Fragment Spread is introduced.
3)  "If we are trying to determian the cause of these craters in a scientific manner, than what they resemble is relatively irelevent."

..I dont see anything like this...
"They already have a quite plausable and demonstrated explanation, asteroids and other debre."

Can anyone  explain how, in detail, asteroids and other debris (nature) can create these straight line CSCC, please ?.  

I can't put it any simpler than I already have. By breaking up in zero gravity, and crashing in the order they were traveling in. And why is spread eliminated when sl9 is introduced? it behaved exactly as it was expected to....broke up and spagetified in formnation when it got close enough to jupiter. Jupiter's gravit is immense, much greater than the moons and small planets these things hit and thus. We would not expect to see quite as much of an effect on an object that got near say Ganymede, because it is a. Thousands of times smaller than jupiter and b. quite far away from it.

[Norval]

Actually the SL9 breakup demonstrated that a broken up hunk of space rock will never make a CSCC.

Actually there is far more photographic evidence of them resembling weapons strikes for comparison then the broken hunk of space rock that hit Jupiter's atmosphere thousands of miles apart.

Mankind even has the capability to produce some of the smaller CSCC, , , , , , but would you want us to here on earth? We can explain how we can reproduce these CSCC with weapons.

We can not show how a comet would produce such a concise and systematic chain of craters that span Mars from just above the big crack all the way up to the polar cap. Hundreds of strikes all in a row, all shoulder to shoulder for over a thousand miles.

Scientists admit that their computer models will not produce these CSCCs.
Currently the only thing known to man that can produce a CSCC is guided atomic weapons.

Those that doubt these facts can also do the research on residual radiation of craters and CSCCs, or not.

Thanks for the welcome.  

[xfahctor]

My responses in bold.

Actually the SL9 breakup demonstrated that a broken up hunk of space rock will never make a CSCC.

Why not?

Actually there is far more photographic evidence of them resembling weapons strikes for comparison then the broken hunk of space rock that hit Jupiter's atmosphere thousands of miles apart.

What evidence do you have besides the apearence of the craters to demonstrate these originate from weapon strikes?

Mankind even has the capability to produce some of the smaller CSCC, , , , , , but would you want us to here on earth? We can explain how we can reproduce these CSCC with weapons.

What evidence do you have besides the apearence of the craters to demonstrate these originate from weapon strikes?

We can not show how a comet would produce such a concise and systematic chain of craters that span Mars from just above the big crack all the way up to the polar cap. Hundreds of strikes all in a row, all shoulder to shoulder for over a thousand miles.

Why not?

Scientists admit that their computer models will not produce these CSCCs.
Currently the only thing known to man that can produce a CSCC is guided atomic weapons.

Which scientists have said they could not be reproduced using computer models? what software was tried, what were the parameters of the attempts, where was it attempted and by whom?
And again........What evidence do you have besides the apearence of the craters to demonstrate these originate from weapon strikes

Those that doubt these facts can also do the research on residual radiation of craters and CSCCs, or not.

what?

Thanks for the welcome.  

My pleaseure. You'll find me a spirited and demanding debater, but I am almost always friendly.

[Waipio]

 ... And why is spread eliminated when sl9 is introduced?  

It was not eliminated, it was initially omitted, and that was my point.

Fragment Spread was omitted by Dok in post 10
Gale introduced it in post 11, thereby informing the specious claim re SL9  causing CSCC.


The following does not take Fragment Spread into account:
"I can't put it any simpler than I already have. By breaking up in zero gravity, and crashing in the order they were traveling in."
"Breaking up" = Fragment Spread. As seen in post 11, fragment spread increases with distance

In some detail please , how would asteroids and debris in nature cause straight  line CSCC  ?

[xfahctor]

It was not eliminated, it was initially omitted, and that was my point.

Fragment Spread was omitted by Dok in post 10
Gale introduced it in post 11, thereby informing the specious claim re SL9  causing CSCC.


The following does not take Fragment Spread into account:
"I can't put it any simpler than I already have. By breaking up in zero gravity, and crashing in the order they were traveling in."
"Breaking up" = Fragment Spread. As seen in post 11, fragment spread increases with distance

In some detail, how would asteroids and debris in nature cause straight  line CSCC please ? Your

Ok....again.....spagetification. Very strong gravity does this. gravity increases in exponential fashion as you get nearer and nearer to an object, especialy pronounced in larger objects like jupiter so you would see the increased spacing as we did. we would not witness this pronounced kind of spacing on smaller lower gravity objects such as moons and smaller planets.

[Waipio]

Ok....again.....spagetification. Very strong gravity does this. gravity increases in exponential fashion as you get nearer and nearer to an object, especialy pronounced in larger objects like jupiter so you would see the increased spacing as we did. we would not witness this pronounced kind of spacing on smaller lower gravity objects such as moons and smaller planets.

Without breakup there is one crater.
Breakup = fragment spread = multiple craters.

CSCC are multiple craters in a line.

Where there is breakup, how do the fragments land in straight lines of craters that are for the most part evenly spaced, that are  nothing like SL9 please?

Is there something about gravity that "unspreads" the fragments?

[xfahctor]

Without breakup there is one crater.
Breakup = fragment spread = multiple craters.

CSCC are multiple craters in a line.

Where there is breakup, how do the fragments land in straight lines of craters that are for the most part evenly spaced, that are  nothing like SL9 please?

Is there something about gravity that "unspreads" the fragments?

Gravity of different degrees effects different objects in various degrees. Often, things out there are loosely formed hunks of rock and ice that seperate when comming in to gravity. Not every asteroid is a one piece solid body, many are a conglomerate of pieces, others are fracftured from previous collisions with other objects and are weaker and more subjetc to gravitational break up.

[xfahctor]

Without breakup there is one crater.
Breakup = fragment spread = multiple craters.

CSCC are multiple craters in a line.

Where there is breakup, how do the fragments land in straight lines of craters that are for the most part evenly spaced, that are  nothing like SL9 please?

Is there something about gravity that "unspreads" the fragments?

the stronger the gravity, the closer the object or piece of an object is to stronger gravity, the more spread you get, lower gravity effects them less so the spread will be far less and the impactws more uniform-ish.

[Waipio]

the stronger the gravity, the closer the object or piece of an object is to stronger gravity, the more spread you get, lower gravity effects them less so the spread will be far less and the impactws more uniform-ish.

Thanks.
I dont see any evidence of breakup / fragment spread in those CSCC 

[xfahctor]

Thanks.
I dont see any evidence of breakup / fragment spread in those CSCC 

Ok then, what would you expect to see as evidence of fragmenting and spreading?
And while we're at it,  what other evidence do you have that these are the result of alien weapons, besides the resemblence of these things to successive munitions craters and some bible text?

[Size10]

And how would you explain this formation:

[xfahctor]

And how would you explain this formation:

he he....he he..."bangkok"....he he...he he....

[Waipio]

quote author=Dok


annnndddd punt. Smiley

still a natural explanation, that is WAY more believable, than aliens.

I dont see how it is an explanation at all;

* the impacts are not in a line.
* they are unevenly spread over thousands of kilometers