Part 1explores 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.
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.
