All the world needs is a dozen Phobos's
I think Jupiter is bigger than Callisto and SL9 broke up on a pass, then came back around several weeks (months?) later, so the distance between fragments was greater than in the photos linked. For the photos linked, the meteor would have broken up on its final trajectory. Similar, but not quite the same situation.
Cool photos though - I'd never seen them before.
what if it was created by a ring around the moon at one point in time? like saturn is now, only with larger rock fragments. Perhaps, like earth is believed to have been, this ring was not past the Roche limit, and therefor fell back into the planet. Some of the material entering back in could have bombarded in a straight line, due to the fact that it would have been pretty straight while orbiting.
Just an idea, but sounds more realistic that being made by "Intelligence"
Re: Re: Crater Chains, natural or not?
This is what I have heard too. The impactor breaks up when going through the atmosphere, thereby resulting in craters-in-a-row.
Not playing this game
Statistics? and some questions
What is your definition of a catina? How objective is it? Could you get an AI program to identify catinas from pictures of planetary surfaces, with a >95% success rate?
What is the areal incidence of catinas, on each of the bodies where you've seen them? How does this compare with the areal density of single craters? crater pairs? ...
Why is "[a]sking any one to accept that a comet breakup, or ejecta from Stickney, or even from impacts on Mars caused these catina we see on Phobos and through out our solar system, is like asking us to believe that a tornado going through a wrecking yard creates new cars."?
Can you demonstrate that the mechanical analogue you propose ("throw a handful of gravel into the air and then toss a clay ball through that mass of simulated ejecta") accurately simulates the key features of a comet breakup (or other proposed origin of catinas)?
Yes, actually you will. Try it. Throw a handful of gravel FOWARD into a lake and see how the splashes line up. Tossing a handful of gravel straight up would approximate what a meteorite would do if it were going nearly straight down - which is extremely rare. That's the piece of the puzzle you are missing: impact angle.
Not playing your games
Perhaps I missed it, but there is no statistical analysis given on your website, nor any 'probability projections'. Without these kinds of quantitative analyses, your conclusions will be, at best, merely 'interesting'.
In particular, IMHO, you will need such analyses to convincingly rule out alternative hypotheses regarding the origins of catinas.
With thousands of images to choose from, and perhaps millions of craters in those images, all kinds of selection effects - some quite subtle - can all too easily mar even the best-intentioned research. Quantitative analyses help identify selection effects and biases.
Where you do make specific claims, you do not provide sources, data or analyses.
For example, section 3 of "Summary Report for 2003" ("Taking a closer look at these specific kinds of catina") is a list of 6 statements, but no data or references to data. In one of the six*, it should be very easy to provide at least a reference.
If it is, as you claim, 'Simply physics 101 here people and the laws of probability', then would you please provide us with the relevant diagrams, equations, and calculations?
*"5. Uniform impact timing. Scientists agree that in this type of catina the impacts all occurred uniformly at the same time." - which scientists? as reported where?
[Edit: fixed typos, tidied up formats]
I'm not going to go taking pictures for you, but here is another example: a sprinkler or hose. If you shoot a horizontal stream of water, it will leave a linear trail on the ground.
And we already covered the SL-9 issue. SL-9 broke up on a close pass, then came back later which allowed the fragments time to separate futher than if it had broken up just prior to impact. I'm sure you've seen the photos of what the trail looked like - a straight line of roughly even spacing. Its the same phenomenon as what you have pics of, just wider spacing.
Here's a start: draw a diagram of a circle with a line of objects going toward it. Play with different orientations of the line, different deviations from a straight line, and different angles of approach. From this, you can get a rough idea of what is required to create these types of multiple impacts - and what would be required to produce a shotgun type impact pattern. Then you'll see if its reasonable or not.
Here's a quickie though: to get a shotgun type impact requires the fragments to be traveling straight down at the time of impact and be very close together vertically. The more oblique the angle and further the linear separation between fragments (tidal forces act perpendicular to the surface of the planet), the more elongated the pattern gets.
Not playing your game
Would I be correct in paraphrasing this as "we haven't done any statistical or probability analysis since we think it's obvious that the catinas in the images can only have been formed by an ET"? If so, then I must say your work is then almost a textbook case of how NOT to do science.
Here's what's on the page "More Information":
"Need more information and precise particulars
information not included on the web site?
Then we require contact from you first by email and stating why you need this information.
There is a whole lot more evidence available to substantiate this theory that ETI caused these types of crater chains and other war damage in our solar system. There also appears to be three kinds of reactions from people that hear of this discovery. The first group makes up about 60% of those talked with and they readily accept and agree that this didn't happen by chance. The second group are those that make up about 35% and because we are not credentialed with initials we couldn't possibly know what we are talking about. Then there is that last group of about 5% that have no viable argument, but insist that we are wrong. Given answers to their questions they nit pick about anything they can find and try to side track the discussion with unrelated questions. It seems that there are some that know and want all of us to know, and then there seems to be some that know and don't want anyone else to know. Send us your vote as to how you think after reading our investigations. "
Let me guess, the normal challenging and questioning parts of the scientific method - which is what I hope Russ and I are engaged in - is, in your eyes, 'nit pick[ing] about anything they can find and try[ing] to side track the discussion with unrelated questions'?
I couldn't find the equation in the Bottke, Richardson and Love paper that you cite*, but it sure would be fun to play with their computer model! I hadn't read the paper before; I'd encourage PF members and guests to take a look for themselves. Your comment suggests that you have a copy of this model. The following comment, from your website ("Questioning the accepted theory"), talking about SL9, suggests that you may have made several runs with the Bottke, Richardson and Love model, but have been unable to reproduce break-ups that could have caused the catinas you present. Have you? If so, why don't you publish the results of those runs?
"Crater chains of the type we are investigating and questioning are not varied in size, are not thousands of kilometers apart and did not impact over days. The very complexity of uniform size, trajectory, alignment, and timing isn't coming from a comet that broke up."
[Edit: removed link to craterchains' email]
Not playing your game Phobos
Its not up us to prove a negative, craterchains - such a thing can't be done anyway. Its up to you to prove the positive assertion that these crater chains were created by intelligence. If you have actual evidence of that - positive evidence, not just a failed model of a natural cause, post it. I won't be visiting your site to inflate your hit count.
Unreasonable? Tough. The burdern of proof is on you and I won't be doing your work for you.
Not playing your games Phobos
Could you please provide a link? I'd like to take a look for myself ...
craterchains, you haven't provided any evidence, only unsubstantiated assertions. You can't just say 'look at the picture, its obviously intelligence,' you have to prove it. Thats the way science works. I must warn you however, that its a two part proof. Not only do you have to prove that these formations could not have happened naturally, but you also need to prove is that there is/was an intelligence there to make them. It almost seems like you are using the assumption that these craterchains are artificial as evidence for the intelligence. Thats a circular arguement.
Again, please feel free to post here any evidence you have.
Craterchains, there is nothing about a nonrandom patter that implies intelligence. Indeed, virtually everything we know about the laws of the universe comes from recognition of nonrandom patterns.
Huh? You'r not talking about Lowell's http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html [Broken], are you? If so - whoa. Lowell was considered a crackpot by his contemporaries, and to continue to believe it after we've landed spacecraft there ---- whoa.
Craterchains, if this is what you are going for, I'm an engineer, not a doctor - the help you need, I can't give you.
Using this map of Mars, please name three to five locations where there is particularly compelling evidence that Mars was destroyed, from the 1800s to ~1950.
We will then go look at some of the detailed images from the many Mars missions to examine the destruction more closely. Perhaps you could also tell us what we will see on the detailed images? Unlike on the Earth - where 50 to 200 years might be long enough for weathering and vegetation to make seeing global destruction hard to see from the air - the evidence on Mars will be quite fresh.
It's not clear to me whether you're claiming any of the crater chains on Mars are the result of nuclear explosions or not. However, it seems you are claiming that they're no more than ~200 years old. What level of radioactivity do you expect to find at these sites? How widely dispersed would the fallout have been?
Thanks for this, Derek Richardson has done some very interesting work.
For other readers, his work is largely in the field of simulation of large numbers of particles, under the influence of gravity, undergoing elastic and inelastic collisions (including fragmentation), incorporating quite a number of physical parameters and properties of the particles. He has used this to simulate the rings of Saturn (or any planetary rings), the formation history of the early solar system (planetismals aggregating to form planets), 'rubble pile' asteroids ('Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon' style responses to an asteroid on collision course with the Earth would make a bad situation much worse, truly), and tidal disruption (SL9 and the like).
Some of the courses he teaches look good! (you can even take some online??)
craterchains, seeing as how Derek has made the source code used in his PhD thesis available online, what do you estimate the effort it would take to modify it to model rubble pile disruptions (and collisions), with the objective of compiling good statistics on the likelihood of your most compelling catinas being formed through collisions, tidal disruption, and rubble piles?
Separate names with a comma.