Possible electrical scars on Planet Earth...

[Velison1]

Thanks for the info, Shelgeyr. Sometimes I feel like I'm riding on the back of a tiger and I can't afford to get off (he'll eat me) and I can't stay on (forever).

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

HI folks: I am searching for evidence, e.g., satellite images, reports, etc. on layered, terrestrial craters machined by electric discharges. Those I have already include: the Richat, Tenoumer and Temimichat craters located in the Sahara, the Tunguska site in Siberia, the Talemzane Crater in Algeria and the Yucatan crater.

I would dearly love to find other evidence of layered, "bullseye" type crater with concentric rings, approximately 1/4 to 2 miles in diameter.
Please help
Velison1

Not quite the size you were asking for, but I think images like this http://corvidae65.deviantart.com/art/Ca ... -293320067 offer some interesting evidence of EDM & electrical actions.

[bdw000]

This may have relevance to some of the pros here concerning the branching angle for electrical strikes (such as the Grand Canyon).

Here's a link to an abstract only (MIT authors):

http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_MAR12-2011-003992.pdf

The mean branching angle is 72.5 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees.

Here's a weird quote:
". . . suggests that the network geometry is determined by the external flow field rather than flow within the streams themselves . . ." WTF????? Perhaps this is just beyond me.

This is just the abstract. No idea how to get the whole article. Seems to me that if they can quantify the stream split angle for "normal" streams, it might help you EU pros with branches that do not fit the 72.5 degree model (electrical strikes of approximatley 90 degrees, right?).

[Doureios]

@bdw000

". . . suggests that the network geometry is determined by the external flow field rather than flow within the streams themselves . . ." WTF????? Perhaps this is just beyond me.

This quotes says that there is an external factor (say an electric arc) that caused the geometry and not the flow of something within it.

In plain words, something created the channels, they were not formed by themselves as a result of i.e. a liquid flow.

It seems to be on the right track.

[GaryN]

Range Creek, Utah.

A PBS video about Range Creek, an unspoiled native settlement. The geology is impressive to me, how wind, water and time ever produced those features, I can not imagine. Google Earth shows what I can only believe are electrical discharge patterns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQnbgEGe ... ture=share

[GaryN]

The gatekeepers of the standard model are at it again.

New evidence supporting theory of extraterrestrial impact found
An 18-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has discovered melt-glass material in a thin layer of sedimentary rock in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria. According to the researchers, the material –– which dates back nearly 13,000 years –– was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 degrees Celsius (3,100 to 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit), and is the result of a cosmic body impacting Earth.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-evidence-t ... mpact.html
I just happen to have been reading about the Edeowie Glass, and in particular this pdf file:

EVIDENCE FOR A LIGHTNING-STRIKE ORIGIN OF THE EDEOWIE GLASS
The Edeowie glass was first described by Haines
et al. (1) as a possible impact melt on the basis of Pla-
nar Deformation Features (PDFs) in quartz grains that
were imbedded within the vesicular melts, and the
presence of lechatelierite. However, the morphology
and distribution of the glasses are inconsistent with an
impact origin. The presumed PDFs are probably planar
cracking, and lechatelierite, baddeleyite, and perhaps
even coesite and schtishovite can occur in fulgurites.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1406.pdf
So which experts are correct?

[GaryN]

4 images of what I interpret to be electrical in nature are on my Picassa site, starting here.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 7355578786
I also put up a page from East Sooke Park, showing the rugged, ragged, cracked and burned shoreline and cliffs. I'd say huge electric/plasma activity, but I'm no expert. Yet.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 6995183250
And possibly electrical, the formation of pebbles. I ran out of memory to capture the rocks being 'born' out of bedrock at the beach, but here are some big pebbles in the bed of my creek. They are still attached to the bedrock, and take a pounding from the creek in the rainy season.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 9179215314
A pdf on pebbles. Who would think it could be so complicated?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0730c/report.pdf
Maybe pillow lava can form into complete spheres, but the question on Vancouver Island is where the lava came from. Perhaps it didn't have to come from anywhere, it is just melted in place by plasma, from above?

[seasmith]

@
Pebbles:

(note minutes 1:55 and 4:15 for fab physics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCp7Lj7fUfA&feature=related





cool:

http://crystal-cure.com/gemstone-marbles.htm

[GaryN]

This image from the Sierra Nevada foothills, to me, suggests a tiny tornado tip moving from one point to another and excavating a pothole, then moving over, leaving a trail as it goes. Or do you see the water/sand moving so fast between them, sideways to the apparent river flow, that it cut a channel in solid granite?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Dd29QhfP1c/T ... +morta.jpg
The electrical evidence on the small scale is everywhere, it just needs to be recognised as such.

[seasmith]

&

Proof is always nice, for regardless of whichever particular viewpoint.




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Dd29QhfP1c/T ... +morta.jpg
The electrical evidence on the small scale is everywhere, it just needs to be recognised as such.

[GaryN]

Proof is always nice, for regardless of whichever particular viewpoint.

I think it would be easier to recreate the observed features with electricity/plasma than with ice/water/wind and swirling pebbles, but I guess the onus is on the challenger to the accepted, even if unproven, models. Guess I'll just have to be satisfied in my own mind that it is electrical.
And speaking of pebbles, I did a mini study of the pebble banks at the lower reaches of the Sooke river today. The first thing I noticed was the large number of very flat rocks, so I think pebbles start out roundish and wear flat, rather than angular and wearing round.
I was also looking at all the geology reports I could find about my area, and found a lot of it quite amusing, the lengths they have gone to in trying to account for observed features, and they have glaciers coming from every which way. They do admit it is all speculation, beginning 60 million years ago, but the most amusing part was the ohduction proposal. As if subduction wasn't hard enough to swallow, they propose that a couple of plates colliding with the southern tip of the Island rode up on to the land, rather than under it. Geology is far, far from being any kind of real science, IMO.

[Lloyd]

* Have you guys thought of any kind of experiment to test any of these electrical rock forming theories?
* If so, they should be posted on the Let's Do EU Research thread.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6448
* C.J. Ransom and others might be able to do such experiments, if we get one spelled out and funded. Phyllo has ideas for getting funding.

[GaryN]

* Have you guys thought of any kind of experiment to test any of these electrical rock forming theories?

With enough time, money and machinery I'd think it possible to show how features such as the Channeled Scablands could be formed electrically, but I'd rather put the shoe on the other foot and make them show how water could have formed them. I see exactly the same features, on a much bigger scale of course, that I can see in my own area, such as the melted appearing rock in river beds, especially where there are large water falls or steps in the river bed. Model water doing that if you can.

http://iceagefloods.blogspot.ca/2009/10 ... anyon.html
The megaflood is the only way they can even try to account for the landscapes, and they are now trying to do the same for similar features seen on Mars. Their stories become more and more ridiculous and untenable, but they realise nobody has either the money, time or inclination to prove them wrong, so they are safe in their beliefs for a good long time I'd say.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with the establishment, I'd rather be out exploring and collecting evidence that offers proof of an alternative model, and if it all hangs together, maybe someone with the resources to challenge the gatekeepers will surface.

[GaryN]

Gnarly dude! I think I hit the mother-lode on the Sooke River. Or had a nice day out at least. This is way above river level and not in the flow even at extreme river levels.
Couldn't get over the canyon to get a sample, but will try again.

I put up some more photos at :
https://picasaweb.google.com/1133457513 ... 0078064450
Included a big foot sighting too!

[Sparky]

garyn,

I think pebbles start out roundish and wear flat, rather than angular and wearing round.

that's silly! Do you get flat material from rock tumblers?!

To test erosion patterns, silt or sand could be used to speed up erosion time. Seems like this has probably been done by someone.