Square Craters

[DragonHunter]

I thought folks might be interested in the square craters in New Mexico and Texas. I can't find any reference to them. But, depending on the strength of the surface, sometimes all that happens is a squarish, thermal, blast burn; others, a full fledged square crater. And squarish multi-lobed craters are common. They are very easy to spot. No two are exactly alike. They are all in the same recent condition. And I've cataloged over 500 of them.

 

This 8.5 meg PDF has a sampling of 50 of them:

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/SquareCraters.pdf

 

 

So far no one wants to talk about them. Is this a case of science in denial?

Edited December 10, 2009 by DragonHunter
broken link

[Phi for All]

Your link is busted and leads to a 404 error.

[insane_alien]

quoth the server 404

 

fix the link

 

also, it is not that improbable that a square crater could be formed give the right underground conditions. i imagine an impact on fairly eroded limestone with a thinish soild covering could form a square crater as they tend to form blocks. an impact could pulverise one or two and leave the surrounding block relatively intact.

[Phi for All]

also, it is not that improbable that a square crater could be formed give the right underground conditions. i imagine an impact on fairly eroded limestone with a thinish soild covering could form a square crater as they tend to form blocks. an impact could pulverise one or two and leave the surrounding block relatively intact.

I was thinking along those lines too. I would be willing to bet a dollar that many of the sites in NM and TX are fairly close to each other, implying similar ground formation.

[DragonHunter]

I fixed the link. Take a closer look. Keep in mind they are dispersed over most of southwest New Mexico, and west Texas in a wide variety of surfaces.

[swansont]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33.5%C2%BAN++104.84%C2%BAW&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.337319,115.048828&ie=UTF8&ll=33.499007,-104.84814&spn=0.007614,0.014044&t=h&z=17

 

This shows two, with one having a very easily seen access road, while the other is a little harder to discern. I'd say they are quarries.

[insane_alien]

they all appear to be man made excavations. either quarries or opencast mines.

[DragonHunter]

Nice guess. But try again. I can provide a much better image of that location if you like. no quarry.

 

Look closely at all 50 of those images. Look for the common features that run through them all. One who is experienced in recognizing the ground effects of explosive events will tell you those are the burn scars of very hot, and powerful detonations. And that they are all consistent with explosions of huge, shaped, explosive charges.

 

There is no known natural object, or material, that can detonate in such a way. Or is there?

 

It's been more than a hundred years since the Tunguska phenomenon. And there is no end to the crack-pot theories; everything from exploding UFOs to time warps.

 

But the Russian scientists haven't been sitting on their hands all this time. There are also literally hundreds of excelent peer reviewed papers on the subject.

 

There are a couple of links in the PDF that provide clues.

 

Tunguska-1908, and similar events, in light of the New Explosive Cosmogony of Minor Bodies

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Explosive%20Cosmogony.pdf

 

and

 

Deep Impact Mission to Tempel 1 Favors New Explosive Cosmogony of Comets

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2268163/DeepImpact.pdf

Edited December 10, 2009 by DragonHunter
Fix typo

[insane_alien]

the black colour doesn't necessarily mean burning. it can lso mean that the ground has been churned up revealing a darker material underneath.

 

assuming these are impact craters is an un justified assumption.

 

you will need to provide evidence(geological surveys) of these areas to prove that they are impact craters. signs to look for ar glass formations at the bottom, breccia or rock shattered rocks, chemical analysis of the rocks.

 

this information cannot be achieved through google earth. but the large number of access roads to otherwise uninteresting areas indicates some quarrying. and not all quarries are currently active. it is entirely possible that many of them are abandoned and no visible evidence(from the point of view of google maps) is available.

[DragonHunter]

C'mon folks, if all I am going to get are week, intelligence insulting, assumptions I'm wasting my time.

 

I've provided references to good, peer reviewed research that you casually dismiss without a glance. If you want to disprove, or debate it, first you need to read it. Show me the data. Show me a link to a peer reviewed paper that mentions even one of those locations.

 

I spent enough time in the military (8 yrs) to qualify as an expert witness on what the ground looks like after something exploded. Battle damage assessment is something I learned the hard way.

 

Those are all the blast burns of powerful, geologically recent, explosions. And I have a growing database of nearly 600 of them. I want to discuss the physics of the square detonation shock effects clearly visible in those images.

 

The pertinent question is, what kind of things went boom?

[Phi for All]

DragonHunter, what's your conclusion about all the roads in and around the sites? If these alleged impacts happened that close to transportation routes, why weren't at least some of them reported?

[insane_alien]

you could be lying, for all we know, about your experiences. also, the articles you posted aren't relevant to the 'craters' you have posted. they are about the tunguska event. tunguska is not in new mexico(last time i checked).

 

you haven't shown how they cannot be anything other than impact craters. all you have told us it 'they look like impact craters to me' so what. people have misidentified things before. they look like small quarries to me. i have seen a lot of quarries from the air. what makes my opinion any less valid than yours? because thats all it is without some independant evidence, opinion.

 

EDIT:

 

So, just so i'm giving back something positive here, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.25131 pretty square looking open quarry.

 

why can't the formations shown in the pictures be old quarries?

[DragonHunter]

That, being a direct, and uncalled for, attack on my integrity so early on, tells me you haven't got the sand, or intelligence to comprehend, or discuss, the data I've presented. So you personally attack the source. This will be my last post.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh, please. There have been many valid questions raised that you have not answered.

[ydoaPs]

/me calls Alex's Law

[Mr Skeptic]

Google maps says the place of your first "crater" is called Upper East Tank. Apparently there's a hotel there.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=35.018248+-105.285515&sll=34.98673,-105.065812&sspn=0.003287,0.006968&ie=UTF8&ll=35.018399,-105.285813&spn=0.003286,0.006968&t=h&z=18

[insane_alien]

it was not a direct attack, it wasn't even an attack at all. i merely said that claiming you have lots of experience on the matter means bugger all, especially on the internet. i can claim i am 50 years old, have server in the RAF since i was 18 and have met the queen twice. but it doesn't mean any of it is true. (and those members who know my actual identity will know that this is a lie).

 

the point is that without someway to independantly verify the facts, we cannot take what you say for granted.

[Phi for All]

That, being a direct, and uncalled for, attack on my integrity so early on, tells me you haven't got the sand, or intelligence to comprehend, or discuss, the data I've presented. So you personally attack the source. This will be my last post.

Unfair. I posted my polite request for clarification about the roads a full five minutes before you were so ruthlessly, brutally and cold-bloodedly... um, questioned by insane_alien.

 

You could have answered me and ignored that filthy 50-year-old ex-RAF queen-meeter. I am offended and this will be my last post.

 

In this thread.

 

Unless you answer my question.

 

So there.

 

[ydoaPs]

For those who were wondering:

 

Alex's Law of Arguments: As soon as an argument becomes mildly personal, the participants have such a vested interest in their position that they will never admit they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence against them.

[Zolar V]

it was not a direct attack, it wasn't even an attack at all. i merely said that claiming you have lots of experience on the matter means bugger all, especially on the internet. i can claim i am 50 years old, have server in the RAF since i was 18 and have met the queen twice. but it doesn't mean any of it is true. (and those members who know my actual identity will know that this is a lie).

 

the point is that without someway to independantly verify the facts, we cannot take what you say for granted.

 

Your Fifty? really? and you were in the RAF since you were 18? did you also fight in WW2 under Churchill? did you single handedly kill hitler with your own 2 fingers? my oh my you are interesting!

[insane_alien]

i wonder if zolar V said that with a hint of sarcasm...

Edited December 10, 2009 by insane_alien
got the name wrong

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For those who were wondering:

 

Alex's Law of Arguments: As soon as an argument becomes mildly personal, the participants have such a vested interest in their position that they will never admit they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence against them.

 

Watch out for the corollary.

[ydoaPs]

Watch out for the corollary.

 

Why? It doesn't apply to me as I'm not a participant in the argument.

[mooeypoo]

Why? It doesn't apply to me as I'm not a participant in the argument.

Nor do you have any emotions. Or appeal.

 

 

 

</rimshot> Kapow, a bow. Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all day.

[Moontanman]

I've seen cubic bubbles, why not square craters?