It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by OrionHunterX
I've seen that before and posted on ATS as well. Not even the Hi-rise team can explain 100% what it is....
This 4 kilometer diameter feature near the edge of the South polar residual cap was recognized in Mariner 9 and Viking Orbiter images taken in the 1970s, but its origin could not be inferred. It was therefore targeted for HiRISE stereo imaging.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9bf3e91a4a1e.jpg[/atsimg]
It also appears that the "swiss cheese" terrain of the residual cap has buried the floor of the circular depression, as well as the terrain surrounding the feature, making it difficult to infer the origin of this depression. Its circular symmetry is consistent with an impact origin, but there is no evidence of a crater rim or ejecta (perhaps because they have been buried). The depression may have formed by collapse, but there is little evidence of extensional fractures that would be expected around a collapse pit. Analysis of HiRISE stereo data may help the interpretation of this feature.
HiRISE / PSP_005349_0930
Yes, it looks familiar, it looks like what I have seen while using an electric arc welder.
Originally posted by squiz
Scroll down through the article if you are in hurry, and you'll see a section called domed craters. There you'll find a picture of one of the effects of electric arcing in the lab, look familiar ?
Funny, I think the same about the electrical arc theory.
There are so many things that can be explained if this is considered. Crater chains, hexagonal craters, the lack of debris or fracturing, the hard scalloped edges, the kidney shaped arcs etc.... Impact theory does nothing for what we see.
Originally posted by ArMaP
The "domed" craters are not domes, they are optical illusion.
Funny, I think the same about the electrical arc theory.
It may help explain some things, but I don't see how it can explain craters better than the impact theory.
No, that's my opinion.
Originally posted by squiz
Is this the official stance? If you believe that all appearances of domes are infact all optical illusions I'd have to disagree.
They don't, if they did everybody would agree with that theory.
Fair enough, however I would argue that the physical discharge experiments speak for themselves. No other experiments have come close to producing the anomalies mentioned.
And are you sure that your conceptions of the universe and nature are closer to the truth than before?
Believe me, I didn't get it or buy it at first either. When my conceptions of the universe and nature changed it made complete sense. Each to there own, good to see you leave a little opening for some things there at least.
It's a question of sounding strange, I just don't see the results of the experiments as showing what they are supposed to show.
I do understand how strange it sounds, so your response is pretty normal.
Forums dedicated to just one topic are usually boring, with almost all people sharing the same ideas and with no intentions of discussing something that deviates (even slightly) from what they think they know.
Originally posted by Havick007
Edit: oh i have been meaning to ask you, did you ever frequent the google earth - off world forums??