I May Have Discovered A New Crater - 2.4 Larger Than the Dinosaurs-Killer

a reply to: Arbitrageur

www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov...

The feed is live, not sure if there are archives for the 15th January. Hence why I had to take a screen shot.

The circle that I believe to be a crater is NOT a cloud, as it was static, whereas the clouds were moving all around.

It's not radar, it's infrared. It's almost like taking a visible picture of the Earth; some geological features will be visible even if it's a weather satellite; for instance the outline of the Province of Quebec can be clearly seen even in IR and even if it's a weather satellite. As I mention, I was not specifically looking for the crater, the crater just appeared on its own and I noticed it by accident. I would of course normally not recommend that people carry out geological surveys using weather imageries.

I believe they aren't asteroid creators, I think they are blast sites after the aliens dropped nuclear bombs to wipe out dinosaurs to make way for us their creation 🙂

Need to find a road to access the location and get a drone with LIDAR in there and see whats going on.

originally posted by: swanne
... I use the IR images to predict how cold it'll get up here ... and using pure IR imagery (as opposed to visible light or microwave)...

IR does not penetrate clouds or water droplets. The IR image is superimposed on a map showing borders for reference.

If you're seeing a circular object in the image it is either something circular within the clouds or pareidolia. My guess is on the latter.

An impact leaving a crater that large would certainly crack or deform the crust beneath it. That would be evident with geological instrumentation.
Are there any known natural gas sources in that area? See en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ColoradoTemplar

Or look for the information already gathered on the crater by the experts.
THE MISTASSINI-OTISH IMPACT STRUCTURE, NORTHERN QUEBEC, CANADA: AN UPDATE

Introduction: Six years ago, a 2,1Ga meteorite impact event has been proposed to explain many field and microscope observations concerning the Otish Basin (OB) and the Chibougamau mining camp (CMC) [1]. The hypothesis also included the Mistassini Basin (MB) for which we had no impact evidence until the 2015 field work.
Since then, our lab work and field surveys have been fruitful. So, an update is deemed to be useful.

a reply to: puzzled2

That's it!!

If you search for a picture of the theorized Mistassini-Otish impact, you'll see it's a perfect match with the crater I have observed in the OP!

You guys are awesome

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid

originally posted by: swanne
... I use the IR images to predict how cold it'll get up here ... and using pure IR imagery (as opposed to visible light or microwave)...

IR does not penetrate clouds or water droplets.

The area in question was under clear, cold and dry skies. In those cases the satellite also picks up ground IR. Those who use the imagery can confirm.

a reply to: swanne

The product you linked to here is the same one you used for your initial "observations" correct?

EDIT TO ADD:

a reply to: swanne

No, it's not a perfect match at all. In fact, it's several times larger than your claim!

In the footsteps of the largest crater in the world

2.2 billion years ago, a huge asteroid 50 to 70 kilometers in diameter would have collided with the Earth, where Quebec is today. This cataclysm, of unimaginable force, would have created the largest impact crater ever recorded on our planet.

This hypothesis, which is controversial, is that of geologist Serge Genest, a former mining prospector who made his fortune by discovering uranium deposits in northern Quebec. In the early 2000s, the scientist gave up his career as a prospector to devote himself to his passion: the study of the geological history of our continent.

Translation provided by Google, but it seems fairly close to accurate.

However, despite some evidence the crater has yet to be positively identified.

Serge Genest's hypothesis is disputed by the international scientific community. Some geologists are downright skeptical. It must be said that the Quebec geologist is a band apart. Independent of fortune, he is not attached to any university institution.

Furthermore, Serge Genest never published his discoveries in major scientific journals. A gap he promises to fill.

a reply to: puzzled2

Check this out

Hypothetical Mistassini-Otish impact (not observed, just approximate):



source: www.lesoleil.com...

Crater I have observed:





The Swanne Crater represents a visual confirmation of the Mistassini-Otish impact event! This is huge!!

originally posted by: swanne

Your article there, including that image, show that the majority of the alleged impact event is not able to be seen from the surface. This would contradict your "observation" even more so than the fact that IR cannot go through water vapor or clouds, as I stated in one of my previous posts within this thread. In addition, the same article that you link to with the above image states...

That said, the presentations of Mr. Goulet and Mrs. Robert - Mr. Genest had not been able to come - were received with a certain skepticism, geologists present saying in particular that at least part of the observations could be explained otherwise, as by a known fault which crosses all of Quebec and which passes through the sector.

My emphasis. Also it's worth noting that the person who claims to have found the crater has no scientific training or accreditation. And, as stated in a previous post of mine, he has yet to release any of his evidence to substantiate these claims.

a reply to: swanne

The Swanne Crater represents a visual confirmation of the Mistassini-Otish impact event! This is huge!!

You have done great initial work in finding this elusive structure, however, it is not huge unless you can substantiate it.
Visual clues are some of the last items taken in the evidence of such scientific finds.

You need impact proxies, physical evidence, to present with a paper. If you have that, then your not being a geologist
will not weigh so heavily as scientists like to talk only to other scientists. It is the way it is.

Further, you are very premature in posting such information before you investigated if you are able to get samples. Since you have found that ring structure, and no one else has seen that image, you can use that information to obtain samples. You are looking for shocked quartz, iridium, shatter cones and carbon/diamond spherules.

Find some of those, and you have truly found this crater and will be recognized for it.

Trouble is, you let everyone else know where the hidden rings of that crater are as well, and if they obtain sample of their own and they turn out to be actual impact proxy, then you have lost the name of your crater.

a reply to: swanne

A New Crater - 2.4 Larger Than the Dinosaurs-Killer

Wow, so much misinformation in such a small sentiment.

First, a crater can't kill anyone. A crater is an immobile feature of landscape, how can that actively kill anything or anyone? Sure, you can DIE from falling into a large crater, but that doesn't mean that it was the crater that killed you (not that anyone can really truly die, only the body can), it was your own stupidity or incompetence, possibly both.

Second, not to assume anything, but you are probably talking about EXTINCTION instead of 'killing' or 'dying'. The dinosaurs as a species went extinct and thus ended the terror that should never have been born. However, just killing someone or something doesn't make it go extinct, unless you kill every single existing lifeform of that particular species (so weird to say 'lifeform', when a form is never truly alive, only the substance that's guiding it can be).

Third, to start assuming something, you are probably talking about the stupid and erroneous theory that some single meteor killed dinosaurs. I rather not even dignify that with a response. The very existence of those monsters was created by unfortunate calamities that this planet was cursed enough to have happen here, they were not an intended form, and they were inhabited by human souls (well, as human as it gets on this planet), which is why many people feel fascinated by them - after all, many people did live in (or as) these forms, so they have faint, sub-conscious memories of all that, so it draws them in. I was probably not one of them, as I feel no interest towards this topic, except to wonder how something so horrible existed here - and that having happened being a testament to just how cursed this planet is.

Also, what does "2.4 larger" mean? Did you forget to type the word 'times', or at least put a masonic X in there somewhere?

Wow there really are people like you on this planet. Pls leave and take the others that think like you with you thanks.

I don't know about that specific crater, but it details many impact craters in the Great Lakes area and eastern Canada. It also has much to say about the Carolina Bays, which are elliptical impact features found from the eastern seaboard to as far west as the Wichita area of Kansas. In all cases, the long axis points to the Great Lakes area, indicating that the Carolina Bays are secondary impacts.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: swanne
I discovered it by pure accident. On January the 15th I was browsing weather infrared satellite images of Quebec

Isn't weather satellite imagery showing us the weather, rather than craters?

Yes, that's why this is silly

The statements that "the Erath's atmosphere is completely opaque to ground IR" is not supported by observational evidences. In fact, this belief is contradicted by observational evidences.

a reply to: swanne

You never answered my question.

The product you linked to here is the same one you used for your initial "observations" correct?

Asking that before I ask a couple of follow up questions. If that is not the product you used, which was it?

Swanne,

I didn't say "the Earth's atmosphere is completely opaque to ground IR", but I asked you some questions in this regard to try to point you in the right direction, and you never responded. You're still lost. These were near the bottom of page 1, and you provided the link I asked for (which you still do not seem to be able to interpret the colors properly), but you ignored the questions pertaining to visibility of ground IR:

"If this is true, please explain the colors and the gray areas in the map. Better yet please provide the source of the data Which you really should have done in the OP), with an explanation of what the colors mean. What does a clear sky look like on this map? Is that where the surface looks gray? In any case, the sky doesn't look clear in the area you highlight, does it?

Also, if your hypothesis has any validity, you should be able to see some other known large impact craters on weather radar in a similar fashion, right? Have you tried to validate your hypothesis in this way? In fact, aren't there other impact craters on that map area which don't show up? "

Once I looked at your link, my guess that some ground features show up in gray areas was confirmed, though some gray areas are also atmospheric. So if the area is gray, it looks like we can be looking at either ground IR, or atmospheric IR where the temperatures are reasonably close to ground temperatures (maybe moisture close to the ground), or some combination. This is readily apparent after several days of observation of the gray areas and seeing that some gray areas move and some gray features do not move and are suggestive of the ground features.

It also looks like the non-gray areas (blue,white, etc) are much colder than surface temperatures (see the temperature scale at the link you got your image from), and I never see those colors married to the terrain like some shades of gray.

Also your own statements are inconsistent and contradictory. Near the top of page 2 you said this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"The circle that I believe to be a crater is NOT a cloud, as it was static, whereas the clouds were moving all around."

That statement isn't consistent with the statement you made in the opening post that:
"So, at one point, and this happens in only one picture frame, the sun begins to rise at the East. At this single moment, the Sun illuminates the highest points and only the highest points, making them slightly warmer, while the lower lands remain cool."

Saying it was observed in only one frame, and also saying it was static is a contradiction. Also it takes some time for the ground to heat up and cool down, but more importantly look at the temperature scale of the temperatures in the feature you're looking at. The temperatures are too cold to be ground surface temperatures according to the scale on the imagery, so that's not what you're looking at, which is the most important point to realize.

So while I can see some ground features in the gray scales, I don't see them in the other colors in the temperature scale, which makes sense since they are too cold to be ground surface temperatures.

Also as others have already pointed out, the circular feature in your OP is not a match for the Mistassini-Otish Impact structure, though it's in the same general vicinity. The size and location are not a match as others already said, and you think you see a full circle but the hypothesized impact structure is only about a quarter of a circle. I see the circle in your OP image but the temperature scale on your source tells me it's not a ground feature based on the colors, and watching the source over days has confirmed this. Ground features, if they appear, are in some shades of gray, not the much colder atmospheric temperatures displayed.