July 1st 2016
Sputnik Planum Compared to Hellas
|
NASA scientist Bill McKinnon lectured on Sputnik Planum calling it an impact site (his lecture starts at 1hr 56 min if you want to skip to it. My favorite speaker was Simon Porter who lectured just before Bill). The below image was used by Bill to compare SP to the crater on Mars called Hellas. Bill stated, "This is evidence that SP is an impact site". Bill continued to explain how the object impacted at the center traveling southward as is indicated by the circle and arrow. |
|
Bill followed up with the below image demonstrating how an impact creates oblique features after an impact. Bill further noted how the oblique shape of SP shows how this is an impact site with the impact traveling from north to south.
In the below image take note of how the greatest degree of damage is at the center of the impact while the lightest damage follows down stream of the impact creating an oblique feature. Now lets see if Bill's statement holds true.
In the below image take note of how the greatest degree of damage is at the center of the impact while the lightest damage follows down stream of the impact creating an oblique feature. Now lets see if Bill's statement holds true.
Painful Questions
When a question was presented to Bill at the end of his speech, he choked a bit then nervously chuckled and had one simple answer. (2:27:30 in the above video)
The question was, "If a large impact of this nature occurred at this location wouldn't there be rocky debris splattered around the edges and on the surface?" Bill simply nervously chuckled and answered "Yes, well um very astute observation". Then he went on to babble about obliquity which sounded like a politician avoiding a question but finished up by saying we need to go back [to Pluto.
In other words his impact model is a complete false fabrication and he knows it, so I ask, "Why present SP as an impact basin like its a fact when he knows it's not?
This is a NASA image depicting the troughs on the surface of SP which I claim outline the sub-terrain floor with its fractures.
The question was, "If a large impact of this nature occurred at this location wouldn't there be rocky debris splattered around the edges and on the surface?" Bill simply nervously chuckled and answered "Yes, well um very astute observation". Then he went on to babble about obliquity which sounded like a politician avoiding a question but finished up by saying we need to go back [to Pluto.
In other words his impact model is a complete false fabrication and he knows it, so I ask, "Why present SP as an impact basin like its a fact when he knows it's not?
This is a NASA image depicting the troughs on the surface of SP which I claim outline the sub-terrain floor with its fractures.
This is an image where I drew lines following fractures on the land surface that migrate naturally into the fluid and continue to show the fractures from below the surface as troughs on the fluid's surface. This shows how these convection cell troughs on the surface outline the fractures just below.
Below is an amazing image of SP, I can't find any documentation about it but it was created by Roman Tkachenko. It appears to me the right side of this image is displaying subsurface features. Roman seems to be able to tease out details from images like nobodies business. Click to enlarge.
Roman's image makes it easy to see how one of my concepts might look. Imagine removing all the nitrogen ices from the surface of SP and what I envision is similar to what you see in the right above image, cracks and fractures mirrored on the surface of SP.
By the way, Bill also stated "Pluto has a subsurface ocean with a differentiated core which still has heat, all of the features on Pluto are extensional not compressive indicating there is no ice II, the only way you get extensional fractures is through ocean freezing which contains ammonia rich materials at 5%". Basically Bill stated everything the Ice Shell paper on the previous page 34 states (BTW Bill made these claims months before the Ice Shell paper was released so the paper is regurgitating Bill's theory verbatim). I love how these guys line up like ducks following their mother message in support of one another.
Update Jan 24th, 2107
Does any scientist think outside this box which was wrapped around Pluto before we arrived?
Why aren't these scientists looking at what's right in front of them?
Why present SP as an impact site from out of one side of their mouth while admitting out of the other that it is not.
Native Americans called this, "Speaking with fork tongue" and it exist in science as well as in politics, the military and corporate management, its called lying. When someone intentionally makes false statements to press their agenda, why should any of their theories be believed? Yet now we have a paper created in support of Bill's false claims along with journalist touting its wonderful mysteries in mainstream media. If I sound harsh in my assessment of Bill, it's because I have no respect for manipulators who walk a tight rope with facts. To me, this is no different than the lying fool on page 31.
To really understand how SP is geologically created and not an impact site please read this page
By the way, Bill also stated "Pluto has a subsurface ocean with a differentiated core which still has heat, all of the features on Pluto are extensional not compressive indicating there is no ice II, the only way you get extensional fractures is through ocean freezing which contains ammonia rich materials at 5%". Basically Bill stated everything the Ice Shell paper on the previous page 34 states (BTW Bill made these claims months before the Ice Shell paper was released so the paper is regurgitating Bill's theory verbatim). I love how these guys line up like ducks following their mother message in support of one another.
Update Jan 24th, 2107
- If there was an ocean of nitrogen below the surface of the Pluto crust and it transitioned because of pressure and/or heat from a solid to a liquid as well as a gas it would then expand, in turn, cracking the ice above. Volcanoes create atmospheres as they vent gasses, Pluto has an atmosphere and plenty of volcanic and geologic activity.
- Charon creates a tidal bulge on both the near and far side of Pluto squishing it like a foot ball or into an egg shape. Pluto's pole precesses (wobbles) 24 degrees every 2.8 myr aka Milankovitch cycles. This would induce a moving tidal bulge, grinding, increased north pole heat from a more direct angle toward the Sun at perihelion and increased atmospheric pressures.
Does any scientist think outside this box which was wrapped around Pluto before we arrived?
Why aren't these scientists looking at what's right in front of them?
Why present SP as an impact site from out of one side of their mouth while admitting out of the other that it is not.
Native Americans called this, "Speaking with fork tongue" and it exist in science as well as in politics, the military and corporate management, its called lying. When someone intentionally makes false statements to press their agenda, why should any of their theories be believed? Yet now we have a paper created in support of Bill's false claims along with journalist touting its wonderful mysteries in mainstream media. If I sound harsh in my assessment of Bill, it's because I have no respect for manipulators who walk a tight rope with facts. To me, this is no different than the lying fool on page 31.
To really understand how SP is geologically created and not an impact site please read this page
On Page 31 I present information exposing how one alien propagandist is lying about claiming NASA is lying regarding one of Pluto's images which is supposed to be 3 years old and doctored. The propagandist has an agenda and is willing to lie in order to press his agenda. I don't see any difference from that scenario and Bill's as Bill knows SP is not an impact site but pressing an agenda for him is more important than presenting facts.
