Crater Chains

[Pimander]

Amy

I think what ArMaP is saying (correct me if I'm wrong ArMaP) is that some things in the written record might be true and others might be untrue.  The way to tell what is true and what is not from the written record is to look at the physical evidence.

Sorry to join in guys, I hope you don't mind.

[Norval]

Texts are only physical evidence that someone wrote them, they are not physical evidence of what they talk about.

ArMaP
Are you even real then? 

Pimander
Note that they didn't use the word "impact", they did however use the words "very large atomics" could make such craters with a very sophisticated guidance system.
When I asked them.

What caused them is not the issue. That they are so precise is.

[Pimander]

Are you even real then? 

What is real?

We are all fragments of the shattered mirror which reflects the mind of God.  The manner in which the fragments perceive the light of God create the illusion of a multi dimensional hologram we call reality but the Buddhists call Maya.

Normal humans only perceive part of the hologram.  The hidden parts of the hologram cause effects to the perceived part leading to data that scientists believe to be errors or anomalous but are actually clues about the nature of the whole - the study of which gives occultists and para-scientists insights mocked by both laymen and most mainstream materialist scientists.  Recently physicists and molecular biologists - often working in secret alongside their normal research have begun to delve into this mysterious realm....

.... I'll leave it there. 


Or maybe it's just the acid. 

[Norval]

FACTS
The governments dont want us to believe that there are UFO's.
Dont want us to accept that there are ET's.
And they damn well dont want us to think of weapons systems that can make these precise chains of craters.

July 13 1995: A String Of Pearls
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950713.html

July 14 1995: Comet Impacts on Jupiter
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950714.html

July 15 1995: The Crater Chain
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950715.html

They waited 15 years to let the general public see these CS crater chains.

[Pimander]

FACTS
The governments dont want us to believe that there are UFO's.
Dont want us to accept that there are ET's.

And they damn well dont want us to think of weapons systems that can make these precise chains of craters.[/quote]
Some parts of the government have actively promoted the idea of UFOs and also ETs - in particular in the intelligence community.  Other parts deny the facts.  Others mislead about the facts.

I am certain beyond any doubt that parts of the modern UFO "myth" are invented and promoted by personnel within the US government.  Meme creation and using the UFO scene to promote confusing information are all standard practice.

That does not mean that UFOs do not exist but it is certainly something to bear in mind when evaluating UFO theories.

[burntheships]

FACTS
The governments dont want us to believe that there are UFO's.
Dont want us to accept that there are ET's.
And they damn well dont want us to think of weapons systems that can make these precise chains of craters.

July 13 1995: A String Of Pearls
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950713.html

July 14 1995: Comet Impacts on Jupiter
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950714.html

July 15 1995: The Crater Chain
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950715.html

They waited 15 years to let the general public see these CS crater chains.

Salient point there Norval.

Current knowledge about the moon is shrouded, which
lends weight to the idea there is a large conspiracy of silence
regarding its present day state.

[Amaterasu]

Amy

I think what ArMaP is saying (correct me if I'm wrong ArMaP) is that some things in the written record might be true and others might be untrue.  The way to tell what is true and what is not from the written record is to look at the physical evidence.

Sorry to join in guys, I hope you don't mind.

Oh, I agree, Pim, but...  What are the odds that societies around the globe would virtually simultaneously come up with such closely matching reports being "myth," fabrication.  Like I said, most of the reports are very specific.  War.  Gods.  Sky.  The only thing that comfortably explains such a widespread concordance is that what They reported were is what They saw.  I'm not saying that this IS the scenarion, but that based on My assessment, is very probable.

[Toltec]

Buenos días, escribo desde Madrid, me apasiona este tema pero mi ingles es muy malo, uso traductor, he estado traduciendo todas su explicaciones y busco en la red fotos de Crater chaina, mi opinión es que sos sistemas de armas ya que es imposible ese tipo de cráteres por sentido común.
Por otra parte dudo mucho que no exista vida ahí fuera, el universo no se creo para el hombre y seria estúpido pensar que estamos solos por ahí.
Los gobiernos son los primeros interesados en que no sepamos nada y si estoy paranoicono significa que no me persigan.
encantado de leerles.
un cordial saludo desde España, madrid.

S r Norval su trabajo es excelente y la dirección también...

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, do You really believe that We cannot learn what happened on this planet from the written record?  Really?

Why do you keep on answering with questions that imply things I never said?

[ArMaP]

I think what ArMaP is saying (correct me if I'm wrong ArMaP) is that some things in the written record might be true and others might be untrue.  The way to tell what is true and what is not from the written record is to look at the physical evidence.

Yes, that's what I meant to say (and what I think I really wrote).

[ArMaP]

ArMaP
Are you even real then? 

At least I have what I think are physical evidences of that, but cannot really be sure if anyone posting on the Internet is real, some do look like invented characters in a comedy.

[ArMaP]

Buenos días, escribo desde Madrid, me apasiona este tema pero mi ingles es muy malo, uso traductor, he estado traduciendo todas su explicaciones y busco en la red fotos de Crater chaina, mi opinión es que sos sistemas de armas ya que es imposible ese tipo de cráteres por sentido común.
Por otra parte dudo mucho que no exista vida ahí fuera, el universo no se creo para el hombre y seria estúpido pensar que estamos solos por ahí.
Los gobiernos son los primeros interesados en que no sepamos nada y si estoy paranoicono significa que no me persigan.
encantado de leerles.
un cordial saludo desde España, madrid.

S r Norval su trabajo es excelente y la dirección también...

Por favor, intenta escribir en inglés, esto es el único idioma que la mayoría de los miembros de este foro habla, y hasta las reglas dicen que mensajes en otros idiomas pueden ser eliminados.

De todos modos, Bienvenido.

PS: disculpas por mi español, soy portugués.


Translation of the above:

Good morning, I'm write from Madrid, I love this theme but my English is very bad, I use translator, I have been translating all of your explanations and seek on the net pictures of Crater chains, my opinion is that they were weapons systems since this type of craters is not possible in the usual way.
I also doubt very much that there is no life out there, the universe was not created for man and it would be stupid to think we're alone out there.
Governments are the first interested in that we do not know anything, and if I'm paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not following me.
Happy to read them.
a warm greeting from Spain, madrid.

S r Norval your work is excellent and the also the (something I don't really understand what he meant) ...

Please try to write in English, this is the only language that most members of this forum talk, and even the rules say that messages in other languages ??may be deleted.

Anyway, Welcome.

PS: sorry for my Spanish, I'm Portuguese.

[Toltec]

Many thanks mate, I'll try to translate what I posted

[Amaterasu]

Why do you keep on answering with questions that imply things I never said?

Deductive reasoning leading Me to a question...?  ArMaP, why are some stories from the past acceptable as good solid "history" and others "myths?"  I deduce You must have a criterium or two as to which ancient texts You deem "history" and which "myth."  What measure do You use?

[ArMaP]

Deductive reasoning leading Me to a question...?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain it better? Thanks in advance.

ArMaP, why are some stories from the past acceptable as good solid "history" and others "myths?"  I deduce You must have a criterium or two as to which ancient texts You deem "history" and which "myth."

See, that's your problem, assuming things about my way of thinking.

I give a higher probability (without numbers, I don't create numbers out of thin air) of something being accurate if there are more texts supporting what that text say. Descriptions of witnesses are even better than second hand reports.