Assumptions in science 8b.) We face an impending threat of cosmic impact? ●The Craters Themselves

 

Click HERE for part 1

Part 1 explores the evidence with comets, asteroids & meteors & discovers no supporting evidence whatsoever for the existence of comets as icy bodies from a theoretical "Oort Cloud" and finds evidence instead of dry, rocky bodies subject to massive voltage difference as cosmic speeds meaning sudden changes causing violent reactions.  Friction is not the only force on landing & heat not the only force in space.

That is half the story, what of the assumed "impact craters" of their supposed landing evidence? Have we got a single account of eyewitness to a crater who has actually witnessed the impact? No. So are there then other candidates that we have witnessed? As it turns out, yes, we do!

2) The evidence with craters we already see.

The assumption of craters all resulting from impacts is to some degree an understandable one. A "late heavy bombardment" period was even invented to explain away the extensive cratering, especially on moons, although no reasonable explaination is given for where these comets/asteroids/meteors might have come from. It seems logical, but surprisingly all the evidence points to the contrary. The evidence that direct ground impacts are less widespread than we currently think I actually think is quite conclusive. How many are caused by EM phenomena, volcanism or other factors remains an open question.

Below : Planetary scarring and craters. 

Below: It's not widely known that electrical planetary scarring can be easily reproduced in a lab. 

While the large scarring on Mars does not appear to be impact related, the tiny ones surely are since Mars is nearby to an asteroid belt where debris will be simelar to Mars in charge and realistically able to endure the frictional forces of Mars thin atmosphere. Such craters as impacts ARE supported by evidence. (Below)

Below: Applying what we learned in the above clips to our own moon. 

Below: The prospect of two to six "Bullseye Craters" being from two perfectly scaled, 90° direct hit contemporary impacts is so unlikely there should not even be one in the solar system, yet there are dozens in one region of our moon alone.

Deduce rather than assume. 

It's clear from many of the craters on solar system moons that they are not impact craters. Here are 5 that are intuitive:

 

1) They are too vast and shallow. 

2) Usually there is no debris present in the crater itself.

3) If they were indeed impact craters the moons would have been pulverized to dust at cosmic speeds.

5) The craters also demonstrate an overwhelming set of characteristics indicating a direct 90° strike occured rather than a side glance. Electric arc discharge craters always hit from this angle. 

More here 

A period of chaos in the orbital positions of planets better explains this cratering, perhaps a disruption or capture event, where the planets would have come into close and regular contact with each other before settling into current positions, causing electric arc discharge cratering, scarring among other things including impact craters themselves. 

Too vast and shallow.

It is immediately obvious to anyone  (once pointed out) that most craters, given the outrageous cosmic speeds achieved in space, that any moon or asteroid hit full on, hit glancing, or even just barely clipped, would pulverize that body to powder in an instant. No conceivable scenario could avoid this outcome. Only electrical arc discharge plasma cratering can account for these craters.

Nothing can survive such large high velocity impacts

It can safely be said that direct ground impact events where catastrophic destruction happens rather than just debris hitting the ground, are likely even rarer than we have been lead to believe, perhaps almost never happening all.  This is not to say the air explosions are not devastating, but unlikely to be civilization ending. The plasma electric arc discharges themselves may pose a bit more of a threat. A solar flare, micronova or CME perhaps the greatest. I don't think we have enough OBSERVATIONAL evidence to really say. I hope to have cast enough doubt on the traditional interpretation of evidence that those reading this would ask the  questions required to bring this important  topic back from the graveyard of progress called the Lambda-CDM cosmology.

😀

Click HERE for part 1

CLICK HERE FOR THE HOMEPAGE

Sources & citations not embedded in the post

Craters and Geological features

• Dichotomy in both sides of the Moon (136). The far side if heavily cratered and with no 'Maria'.

• Dichotomies in Callisto and Ganymede (137). Very different evolution due to Late Heavy Bombardment.

• Mars hemispheres dichotomy (138). Southern is cratered and 58 km in depth, while northern is flat and its crust is just 32 km.

• According to 'Earth Impact Database' there are 190 confirmed craters on our planet, most of them being circular (139). Meteorites should have fallen almost totally vertical (within +-15 degrees). Probabilities are meaningless (152). The flour experiments of JPL Laboratory (NASA) show how inclined impacts produce oval craters (140). Electric fields are always perpendicular to surface (152). Comparing with experiments published in papers (142), and filmed in videos (141) (143) it is clear that Most Craters can be proven Electrically driven.

• Polygonal craters (hexa, penta and other regular forms) are NOT explained by impacts. However, they have been created using electricity (144).

• Aligned craters in the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Pluto, Ganymede, Callisto and even Phobos! (145). Did meteorites fragmented just previous to impact in all such little bodies with no atmosphere? Unlikely.

• Craters with central peaks: these are generally explained as bounces of liquid material. It's hard to explain the secondary craters right in the centre of the peaks (several km high some) (146).

• Bull-eye craters: concentric (Robin Hood) and highly unlikely by impact. Sometimes there are groups up to 4 rings (147).

• Rampart craters: at elevations over the surrounding terrain and surrounded by a moat. It's well explained by EDM (Electrical Machining). They are huge fulgamites. (148)

• Spherules: created by arc discharges in experiments. (Mars, Venus and Saturn) (149).

• Rilles (estuaries, canals): they are said to be "sunken lava tubes", but there are NO visible remains. They have vertical walls (Luna, Valles Marineris) and several rilles crater chains following the shape. They are longer than volcanic tubes on Earth (150).

• There are 'Mixed craters' (lightning embankment) such as Tycho, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes and Ptolemy. Electrical erosion and fusion is a characteristic of electric craters (151) .

• Fusion and vitrification are characteristic of electric arc discharges (155). It is believed that it can produced by impacts, but the heat dissipates too quickly. The heat transfer in the rock takes a large span approximately 21 mm/min in limestone (154).

• Some of the alleged 'impact craters' hare humongous: Rheasilvia (90% of Vesta), Aitken (70% of Moon, Veneneia 70% of Vesta, Odysseus (42% of Tethys), Turgis (40% of Iapetus), Herschel (35% of Mimas), Evander (34% of Dione), Caloris (32% of Mercury), Yalode (28% of Ceres), Tirawa (24% of Rhea), Gertrude (21% of Titania), Dorothy (21% Charon), Stickney (around 17% of Phobos), Rembrandt (15% Mercury), Chicxulub (1.4% of Earth) (162). And little moons were not destroyed by the impacts!

"Despite the enormous size of the Valles Marineris chasm on Mars, the mechanism responsible for the formation of these unique troughs remains unknown" (156).

• Olympus Mons formation is another colossal mystery (157), especially the scarp where it is located and the surrounding ridges and ravines.

• Density anomalies in Mars (158) especially in equatorial regions. Same could be said about density of comets, which we've seen are not made of ice (163).

• Filamentary network of "valles" in Venus (159). Lightning in high pressure gas causes this type of Lichtenberg Patterns (160). At low atmospheric pressure cratering is common (161).

CLICK HERE FOR full SOURCES AND CITATIONS referenced above