Chapan'ya, Russia - more evidence of previous meteor storms?

[Ady_H101]

Today, for no perticular reason, i decided to have a mess around on google maps using the satellite mode. I was zooming in and out of a few different locations when i cam across what looks to me like a HUGE meteor shower impact zone to the north of Chapan'ya in Russia at the very north of the country. There are, what look like, thousands of impact craters varying in size and shape. If you want to take a look at this i suggest before typing in Capan'ya that you zoom right out or search then once a message shows explaining that theres no map available at such a zoomed in scale just zoom out and it will show the map as ive had problems with the system in this reguard. I did have a quick check to see if this had been mentioned before but found nothing. If it has then please either merge or delete the thread!

I just have to say though if this really is an impact zone then the scale of it is staggering ive seen a few pictures on the 'something wicked this way comes' youtube video and in Secret History but this is crazily big.

 

[Erna]

[quote author=Adrian Hoyland]
I just have to say though if this really is an impact zone then the scale of it is staggering
[/quote]

I see what you mean! I don't know who updates their maps the most, but a nice alternative to Google Earth and Google Maps is _http://www.flashearth.com

 

[Laura]

Can ya'll get some images and play with them so they aren't too large and post them here?

 

[Ady_H101]

Ive just done a rough screen dump and had a mess around in paint and came up with this. This is just a small section and it seems to go on for miles and miles.

 

[vinny]

oh! that is reminiscent of the Carolina Bays. Though examining it a bit more, it seems the 'impact' (?) points are rather regular, in 'stripes', like exposed strata.

anyway, I wonder how many more sites like this there are, in remote locations??

edit: it's a huge area that stretches for miles, and it's not all as regular as that bit. For anyone who is interested, here is a google-maps link with the co-ords, zoomed out over a large area:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Chapan%27ya&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.543096,82.353516&ie=UTF8&ll=70.318738,146.513672&spn=5.997758,20.588379&t=h&z=6

 

[Erna]

[quote author=Nomad]
anyway, I wonder how many more sites like this there are, in remote locations??
[/quote]

Although not nearly as impressive as the ones in Chapan'ya in Russia, I found these ones in Mozambique and Tanzania a while back while playing around:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hanang&sll=70.318738,146.513672&sspn=5.124109,19.489746&ie=UTF8&ll=-4.522009,35.424385&spn=0.236497,0.304527&t=h&z=12

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Chapan'ya&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.543096,82.353516&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-22.205206,33.575935&spn=0.219642,0.304527&z=12&iwloc=addr

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Chapan'ya&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.543096,82.353516&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-22.69512,33.638077&spn=0.437734,0.609055&z=11&iwloc=addr
(just keep going North/North-East on this one)

And then there's of course our very own Vredefort crater here in South Africa:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_crater
_http://www.parys.co.za/dome/index.html

In this link there's a map highlighting the known meteorite craters around the world:

_http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Faults-to-Mountains/Meteorite-Crater.html

And considering that the land/sea ratio on earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, imagine how many slammed into the sea for which we don't have evidence today.

 

[thorbiorn]

Can ya'll get some images and play with them so they aren't too large and post them here?

I could only see Ady’s attachment WHEN logged in. So when not, I missed out on the great efforts. I can’t know if anyone else had a different viewing experience or if it was only my browser, so for if nobody minds I quote trying to get the picture also:

Ive just done a rough screen dump and had a mess around in paint and came up with this. This is just a small section and it seems to go on for miles and miles.

I don't know who updates their maps the most, but a nice alternative to Google Earth and Google Maps is _http://www.flashearth.com

Thank you, I tried it and then found a few others:

A selection of Google like tools is available on _http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/ Entering some coordinates in degrees or decimals one gets a page with the location and a rich menu of alternative tools and maps. Some of these are up to date, with snow cover, and clouds, others are for orientation , or useful for surface investigation as when looking for craters.

For anyone trying out any of the viewing tools:
The coordinates mentioned above by Nomad are 70.318738 N, 146.513672 E, Address: Russian Federation, Sakha Republic Чапанья :

The coordinates of Erna: Tanzania: -4.522009, 35.424385; Mozambique 1: -22.205206, 33.575935; Mozambique 2: -22.69512, 33.638077

A small hint: In some applications North is the default, if you wish to plot the location Erna gave in such a case, and you change to S =South, you need to drop the minus sign as well, as it is minus from a N= North point of view.

To post the images there is a way in some applications of copying the image address. But because the pictures in most cases are composed by segments, only the image address of the part pertaining to the plot, where one’s mouse is pointed, gets copied. Having done this one can try to place the link within the

[IMG][/IMG]

and click 'preview' to see, if it shows what one wants it to.

Example

[IMG]http://khm1.google.com/kh?v=34&hl=pt-PT&cookie=fzwq1Lr97-ySutIC5VRJOPcK_5ewIzaboSBRQg&x=231&y=57&z=8&s=Galile[/IMG]

[IMG]http://khm0.google.com/kh?v=34&hl=pt-PT&cookie=fzwq1Lr97-ySutIC5VRJOPcK_5ewIzaboSBRQg&x=1214&y=1153&z=11&s=Gal[/IMG]

becomes a place near Chapan’ya

and the other a place in Mozambique

How long this little tip will work, we shall know when the photos supposed to be above are no longer there.

The above was done with the help of _http://www.geody.com/ I found out that it does not work with hybrid maps because all that gets copied is the overlay and not the ground below.

_http://www.blue-marble.de/ worked in the same way as the above program, as did a couple of others.

_http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ has an option that allow for making images of whole areas, but the coloring is pretty bad. Still here is an example:
Going to the above website, then choosing among map options: JPEG/PNG/SVG maps In the new window filling out the information required, entering the data from the place Erna indicated, below ‘latitude,longitude,name,desc,color’
-22.69512,33.638077,Geological formations in Mozambique,1,blue one gets
_http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/display/1231180070-01801-198.54.202.70.png

 

[thorbiorn]

More about Siberia

Чапанья that is Chapan'ya is located in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) of Russian Federation: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic although one does not find it mentioned therre, as it seems to be a very small place.

Entering Чапанья into a Russian search engine, _http://www.yandex.ru and selecting maps gave the explanation that, it is a small settlement in the region/ulus of Ust-Yanski, which can be seen as the red triangle in the North of the Sakha Republic, which is confined by the outer red border on the following map:

found on the official website of Ust-Yanski: _http://ystyanie.narod.ru/ofisial.html

The coat of arms of the Ust-Yansky region, in which Chapan’ya is located in has a mommoth, one of the animals which died out during the great extinction.

From _http://geraldika.ru/symbols/10219 where there is explanation in Russian.

The complete address of Chapan'ya in Russian, for anybody wishing to find out more: Россия, республика Саха, Усть-Янский район, поселение Чапанья

See map of Chapan’ya on: _http://maps.yandex.ru/map.xml?mapID=2100&mapX=15775403&mapY=11395325&descx=15775403&descy=11395325&scale=9&text=%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F%2C%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%AF%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD%2C%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D1%8F&from=search

The finds of MegaFauna remains buried under heavy layers of undifferentiated and unstratified soils and gravels are indicative of such ejecta emplacement burials. Similar finds have been found across Siberia. Russian scientist at one time thought that Mastodons were mole-like creatures, since their remains were almost always found intact underground.

The following legends are from the indigenous people living in the Sakha Republic or Yakutia.

Stories from the Yakuts

A number of cultures retained stories of impact induced winter. Most telling of such lore this author has read are these amazingly informative tales of the Yakuts: [note that the CH in brackets below is printed in the reference as a "c" with a diacritic "v"]

[CH]OLBON . . . is said to be "the daughter of the Devil and to have had a tail in the early days". If it approaches the earth, it means destruction, storm and frost, even in the summer; . . .

[CH]OLBON, the daughter of the Devil is a beautiful girl ... she is the bride and the sweetheart of Satan's son ÜRGEL (Pleiades). When these two stars come close to one another, it is a bad omen; their eager quivering, their discontinuous panting cause great disasters: storms, blizzards, gales. When they unite, fathom deep snow will fall even in the summer, and all living beings, men, animals and trees will perish . . .

Both folk memories were recorded by ethnographer V.L. Serosevsky, the first in 1877, the next in 1885. The Yakuts identified Venus as colbon; however, as a later student of this culture, G.V. Ksenofontov, observed:

The Yakuts have two words for the "star": SULUS and [CH]OLBON. The first means simply "star", the second refers to stars that change their place in the sky, sometimes appearing and disappearing. Nowadays, however, it no longer--or very seldom--refers to other planets than Venus and has almost become its name. Yet, as we have seen, in legends also other [CH]OLBONS (i.e. planets) are mentioned.

Since the Yakuts are not unfamiliar with what could be the results of severe impact, would the place they live also show traces of these? Is this what Ady's observation is leading to?

Or if some object exploding over North America was assisting the extinction of many big animals in North America. Could that event over North America have caused the parallel extinctions in Siberia, or were the causing events different. And if different could they have left behind geological structures? And in particular like those seen near Chapan’ya? One needs to ask some good geologist who is familiar with the area, and the literature.

Next follows some of what I could find:

A book about some Siberian Impact Craters may not help solve the issue, but might tell what is know about impact craters in Siberia.

There is a book on Amazone: Meteorite Hunter: The Search for Siberian Meteorite Craters (Hardcover) by Roy A. Gallant (Author) the description is

On June 30, 1908, farmers in remote Siberia witnessed what appeared to be a second sun coming down from the sky. This fireball exploded with a ferocity of about 2,000 times the atomic blast at Hiroshima. It incinerated an area seven times the size of New York City and produced pressure waves that went around the planet twice. To this day, there is conflict about what caused this so-called Tuskunga event. A rocky asteroid and the icy nucleus of a comet are two leading possibilities. Gallant is the first American to be invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to study meteor craters in Siberia. His journeys spanned the past decade and covered sites as far North as the enormous Popigai crater in Siberia's polar region. In The Meteor Hunter, Gallant regales readers with the amazing tales
of his trips and provides a sound understanding of what we know thus far about the Tuskunga event and other space-debris impacts. McGraw, 2002, 231 p., b&w plates, hardcover, […].

The book is quite cheap now, five to six USD.

The Russian Association of Meteorite Enthusiasts have a website: _http://meteoritics.ru/ On _http://meteoritics.ru/forum/viewforum.php?f=9&sid=61ed7a1aee7b209fc03724df60165664 they have one category about hypothetical meteorite craters in Russia, but do not mention the Chapan’ya structures.

If anyone wishes to search for the latest about possible Russian impact craters, an impact crater in Russian is also called: ‘astroblem’ ~ Астроблем
The reference for this is:

3. There is a unique geological structure located within the territory – Popigayskaya astroblem (vast crater created due to the fall of a meteorite),

For a list of Russian resources and search engines, which sometimes put priorities different than Google, see the page of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science: _http://www.sbras.nsc.ru/information/

For Russian books on Earth Sciences: _http://www.ozon.ru/context/catalog/id/1000052/
For Russian books on ufology, and other anomalies: _http://www.ozon.ru/context/catalog/id/1072904/ which had a book about the Tunguska event: _http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/3997595/ but nothing new there.

 

[thorbiorn]

The Carolina Bays
Is there any similarity between the Carolina Bay structures and Chapan’ya? In order to consider this possibility, a review of what is known about the Carolina Bays is in order.

The first source is _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay by reading which one understands there is very much discussion still as to their origin:

Terms used in the Wikipedia article which I had to look up were OSL:

OSL Background
Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) is a trapped electron dating technique, based on the ability of natural semiconductors (such as quartz or feldspar) to accumulate a population of trapped electrons arising from atoms ionized by the ambient radiation flux. The size of the trapped electron population provides a measure of the dose received by the grain since it was last zeroed, which usually occurs with sunlight exposure during transport. Determination of the concentration of radionuclides within the deposit allows calculation of the dose rate to which the grain(s) was exposed. Thus:
Dose =Age
Dose rate

and palynology:

Palynology is the science that studies contemporary and fossil palynomorphs, including pollen, spores, dinoflagellate cysts, acritarchs, chitinozoans and scolecodonts, together with particulate organic matter (POM) and kerogen found in sedimentary rocks and sediments. Palynology does not include diatoms, foraminiferans or other organisms with silicaceous or calcareous exoskeletons.

Palynology is an interdisciplinary science and is a branch of earth science (geology or geological science) and biological science (biology), particularly plant science (botany). Stratigraphical palynology is a branch of micropalaeontology and paleobotany which studies fossil palynomorphs from the Precambrian to the Holocene.]

And moving on:

OSL dating
Over the last several years, Ivester et al. (2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) have dated the sand rims of numerous Carolina Bays using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) They found sand rims of many Carolina Bays to be as old as 80,000 to 100,000 BP.
[...]

Palynology

The sequence of pollen zones recovered from cores taken from various Carolina Bays Frey (1953, 1955), Watt (1980), and Whitehead (1964, 1981) document the presence of full glacial pollen zones within the sediments filling Carolina Bays. The thick sediments, which were recovered in these cores and contain pollen characteristic of full glacial conditions could only have accumulated within these Carolina Bays only if they had existed prior to end of the last glacial epoch. The radiocarbon dates reported by Frey (1953, 1955), Watts (1980), and Whitehead (1964, 1981) from these Carolina Bay cores fully collaborate both the glacial age of the pollen and the undisturbed nature of the sediments filling these Carolina Bays as indicated by the reported layering of the sediments filling them and increasing age with depth of the pollen they contain.

Within cores of undisturbed sediments recovered from Big Bay, North Carolina, Brook et al. (2001) documented well-defined pollen zones consisting of distinct pollen assemblages. They found a stratigraphically consistent series of pollen zones, which increased in age consistently with depth from Holocene interglacial epoch to the Wisconsinan glacial epoch, back into Oxygen Isotope Stage 5, 75,000 to 134,000 years BP. These pollen zones collaborate the dating of Big Bay by OSL and radiocarbon dating.

If that is so, or even approximately so, then how can the creation of the bays be related to the possible cause of the impact in Younger Dyras that is explained in ‘The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes’ by Richard Firestone, Allen West and Simon Warwick-Smith, and repeated in:

Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling R. B. Firestonea,b, A. Westc, J. P. Kennettd, L. Beckere, T. E. Bunchf, Z. S. Revayg, P. H. Schultzh, T. Belgyag, D. J. Kennetti, J. M. Erlandsoni, O. J. Dickensonj, A. C. Goodyeark, R. S. Harrish, G. A. Howardl, J. B. Kloostermanm, P. Lechlern, P. A. Mayewskio, J. Montgomeryj, R. Poredap, T. Darrahp, S. S. Que Heeq, A. R. Smitha, A. Stichr, W. Toppings, J. H. Wittkef, and W. S. Wolbachr […]
Abstract

A carbon-rich black layer, dating to ≈12.9 ka, has been previously identified at ≈50 Clovis-age sites across North America and appears contemporaneous with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas (YD) cooling. The in situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it. Causes for the extinctions, YD cooling, and termination of Clovis culture have long been controversial. In this paper, we provide evidence for an extraterrestrial (ET) impact event at ≅12.9 ka, which we hypothesize caused abrupt environmental changes that contributed to YD cooling, major ecological reorganization, broad-scale extinctions, and rapid human behavioral shifts at the end of the Clovis Period. Clovis-age sites in North American are overlain by a thin, discrete layer with varying peak abundances of (i) magnetic grains with iridium, (ii) magnetic microspherules, (iii) charcoal, (iv) soot, (v) carbon spherules, (vi) glass-like carbon containing nanodiamonds, and (vii) fullerenes with ET helium, all of which are evidence for an ET impact and associated biomass burning at ≈12.9 ka. This layer also extends throughout at least 15 Carolina Bays, which are unique, elliptical depressions, oriented to the northwest across the Atlantic Coastal Plain. We propose that one or more large, low-density ET objects exploded over northern North America, partially destabilizing the Laurentide Ice Sheet and triggering YD cooling. The shock wave, thermal pulse, and event-related environmental effects (e.g., extensive biomass burning and food limitations) contributed to end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions and adaptive shifts among PaleoAmericans in North America.

The following link; _http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=741568C2D58A9793
has the presentation and discussion on youtube with an introductory summary. It is from May 23-25, 2007, American Geophysical Union (AGU), Joint Assembly, Acapulco, Mexico

A chart of their research on Carolina Bays presented on that occasion: _http://www.georgehoward.net/images/New_Folder4/cbays.5.jpg prepared by R. Kobres, G. Howard, A. West, R. B. Firestone, J. P. Kennett, D. Kimbel, W. Newall

Below are some sites that favor an impact as involved in the creation of the Carolina Bays. _http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm is by George Howard who gives a review of the history and research, it is referenced and with illustrations, the above chart is from his page.

George Howard mentions Robert Kobres:

Kobres' conclusion would be just another addition to the long list of formation theories had he not uncovered a previously unexamined analogy to the Carolina Bays. Completely absent from the controversy prior to his study is any comparison of so-called "maar" features with "Carolina Bays "
[…]
Put another way, Kobres believes Bays should be considered "top-induced" maars, formed by heat from above, as opposed to "true" Maars, which have volcanic and subterranean origins.

see Robert’s own illustration of this particular point: __http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/firewate.html his inspiration for this idea might have come from:

by J. Ronald Eyton & Judith I. Parkhurst, Paper Number 9, April 1975, Luis E. Ortiz & Susan Gross, editors, Geography Graduate Student Association, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
[…]
Conclusion
[…]The proposed model with shock waves from cometary fragments exploding above the surface creating a series of similar landforms is conceptually very simple, and is far less complex than most of the terrestrial models postulated recently. For geometrically regular forms such as Carolina Bays we prefer a simple causal mechanism if it is feasible. […]

They have included some mathematical evaluations also.
For many more aticles on the Carolina Bays that Robert Kobres has collected: _http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbaymenu.html

On _http://hamptonroads.com/2008/09/carolina-bays-explaining-cosmic-mystery there is the first of a series of three articles written by Diane Tennant from The Virginian-Pilot, published over three days beginning September 7, 2008. It is a readable account about the comet impact theory and the search for evidence. The author tells of a field trip to the Carolina Bay structure with George Howard, Malcolm LeCompte, and Allen West.

In her last article she writes:

Critics of the impact theory say the 14 markers rain down on Earth all the time as dust from outer space. West says the markers in the black mat and in the Carolina bays are many times more abundant than those normal background levels. Such high levels are found only in association with cosmic impacts, he said, but not everyone is convinced.

As further evidence for the impact theory, the group cites the work of other scientists. Some have reported finding Clovis tools and mammoth tusks gouged on just one side by radioactive grains of dust, all dug in from the direction of the Great Lakes. Others have concluded that floods up to 1,000 feet deep roared across the Northwest states. Still others have studied the loss of ocean circulation and found Hudson Bay sediments off Africa and Europe, carried there, they think, by icebergs flushed into the southern seas by the influx of fresh water from the melted ice sheet.

West and his colleagues presented their impact hypothesis at the American Geophysical Union meeting in October 2007. (An entire morning of the meeting was devoted to papers, pro and con, about it.) Shortly thereafter, hearkening back to the great debates of the mid-1900s, the journal Science published the first criticism of it.

In May, the Geological Society of America published another paper that called the evidence "a Frankenstein monster, incompatible with any single impactor or any known impact event." The rebuttal from Firestone and West, published in the same issue, concludes: "The truth may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true."

In June, a rebuttal to the rebuttal, published online, warns against "a few markers collected in good faith from an abundant background, combined with a good story and some wishful thinking."

A paper about the diamonds has been submitted to two major international journals. West hopes it will be out soon.

The wikipedia has:

In favor of the impact argument, Buckyballs, or C-60 has been reported from the area of a number of the Carolina Bays. This is a spherical material that floats in water, conglomerations of which can be seen sometimes with a microscope, other times with just a hand lens. It is created after carbon is put under high pressure. If the presence of buckyballs can be substantiated by other studies, it might provide significant evidence of an impact.

That would also make the bays an integral part of various other findings associated with the impact event, like a layer of soot found all over North America, drastic climate change, the end of the Clovis culture. The event has come to be called the Clovis comet.

Before making a comparison between the Carolina Bays and the Chapan’ya area it is necessary to acknowledge, I think, that the debate over the Bays is not completely settled. One can argue that some people refuse to accept that big cosmic events do happen and that these do influence how the Earth looks, but still all the data should fit together. One gets the impression when reading theses different results that each specialist group sit in their own ‘bay’ of specialization.

Maybe it is also too much to ask for a complete agreement on ‘the Bays’. Two objects may look similar a long way and still have a rather different origin. And it does not have to be a one size fits all - Bays. Similarly this may be the case among the Pachan’ya structures.

 

[thorbiorn]

Criteria for determining if a structure is an impact crater
Maybe one of the issues when discussing impacts on Earth of objects from deep space has to do with the criteria:

The principal criteria for determining if a geological feature is an impact structure formed by the hypervelocity impact of a meteorite or comet are listed below. The criteria can be divided into megascopic (overview – bird’s eye / satellite scale), macroscopic (can be seen easily seen with the naked eye) and microscopic (requires a microscope to see) features, as follows:
1. Presence of shatter cones that are in situ (macroscopic evidence).
2. Presence of multiple planar deformation features (PDFs) in minerals within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence).
3. Presence of high pressure mineral polymorphs within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence and requiring proof via X-ray diffraction, etc.).
4. Morphometry. On other planetary bodies, such as the Moon and Mars, we rely on the shape of the impact structure to determine its presence and type (simple versus complex, etc.). This is a megascopic quality (i.e., too big to be seen unaided by the human eye, thus requiring remote sensing, aerial photography, detailed mapping of multiple outcrops to assemble and view the typically km- or multiple km-size structure). On Earth, recognizing impact structures solely by their morphometry is complicated by two factors: (a) weathering, erosion, burial processes and tectonic deformation can obscure and/or destroy the original shape; (b) certain terrestrial features generated by means other than impact can have comparable circular form (e.g., volcanoes, salt diapirs, glacigenic features), such that a circular structure alone is not sufficient to claim impact structure status. Some buried craters have been revealed solely by geophysical techniques, although drill core is typically required to reveal macro- and microscopic evidence to prove an impact origin.
5. Presence of an impact melt sheet and/or dikes, and impact melt breccias that were generated due to hypervelocity impact (macroscopic). These bodies typically have a crustal composition derived by the fusion of target rocks (i.e., there is no mantle contribution to the melt). Such melts may be contaminated by meteoritic (projectile) components (the latter requires specialized geochemical analysis to detect the projectile components). Melt sheets may be overlain by so-called fallback breccias (referred to as “suevite” by some workers), and material blasted out of the crater may form ejecta blankets about the original central cavity. For large impact events, ejecta can be distributed globally. Impact melt sheets are recognized by careful mapping and rock sampling followed by microscopy and geochemical analysis.
6. Pseudotachylyte and Breccias: Pseudotachylyte is a rock type generated by faulting at either microscopic or macroscopic scales. However, pseudotachylytes are also associated with seismic faulting due to endogenic processes (e.g., earthquakes due to isostatic rebound and plate tectonics), so they are not exclusively impact generated. However, in association with features listed above, they can be a contributory criterion. Pseudotachylyte associated with impact structures may form in radial and concentric fault systems that help to define the megascopic structure of the crater. Pseudotachylytes can be included in a family of rocks referred to as breccias. Many different types of breccia can be developed as part of the impact process (including impact melt breccias listed in (5) above), but breccias can also form by endogenic processes. The interpretation of breccias therefore requires considerable care and experience. Moreover, they should not be considered diagnostic of impact, but rather contributory evidence.

In terms of relative importance, it is generally considered that criteria 1-3 above are definitive (they all relate to the passage of a shock wave through rock and resulting modification processes), with contributory evidence being added by 4-6 (which result from secondary effects, such as gravitationally driven crater modification). For buried structures that cannot be directly accessed, but are well-preserved as revealed by detailed geophysical techniques (especially seismic data), some workers consider this as strong evidence in favour of an impact origin. Normally, buried craters are verified by drilling and sampling the material directly for evaluation using criteria 1-3 above.

The mineral types mentioned in the excerpt are explained in: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorites_classification _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breccia The text in the above that was underlined will get attention in the next post.

Having read the criteria, the question becomes, how many impacts would escape these criteria?

If an object was very light or porous or quite hard, but it hit a soft surface which could brake the speed like water, ice or a swamp; would such an object make any impact that after a few thousand years would count according to the criteria above?

Or an object does not hit the earth, but hits the atmosphere with its tail (in the case of a comet) and pollutes it. Or an object is quite big but burns, breaks up, and fumes more than usual due to a low entrance angle and therefore a longer contact with the resisting atmosphere, so that when it lands not much speed or mass is left but the damages on the biosphere have been considerable and no impact according to the above criteria might be visible.

Where does the Earth begin? Is there one type of impact for geologists and another for astronomers? And meteorologist, do they count an impact only, when it disturbs their weather forecast? Just asking questions, of course there will be a lot of overlap, but not always.

 

[thorbiorn]

A list of some phenomena that can be mistaken for impact craters.
As mentioned in the criteria section above some structures resembling impact craters have another origin. Below are some:

1. Caldera

A caldera is a cauldron-like volcanic feature usually formed by the collapse of land following a volcanic eruption. They are sometimes confused with volcanic craters. The word comes from Spanish caldera, and this from Latin CALDARIA, meaning "cooking pot". In some texts the English term cauldron is also used. A caldera such as Mount Warning, is not caused by a collapse, but by erosion. Hence this type is called an erosion caldera.

2. Maar

A maar is a broad, low-relief volcanic crater that is caused by a phreatomagmatic eruption, an explosion caused by groundwater coming into contact with hot lava or magma. A maar characteristically fills with water to form a relatively shallow crater lake.

Taking a look at the site of Robert Kobres _http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/firewate.html one may have the opportunity to see pictures of some more maars.

3. Ringdike

A ring dike or ring dyke in geology refers to an intrusive igneous body. Their chemistry, petrology and field appearance precisely match those of dikes or sill, but their concentric or radial geometric distribution around a centre of volcanic activity indicates their sub-volcanic origins. […]One notable ring dike in New Hampshire has been mistaken for a meteor impact crater (see Pawtuckaway State Park).

4. Salt diaper

A salt dome is a type of structural dome formed when a thick bed of evaporite minerals (mainly salt, or halite) found at depth intrudes vertically into surrounding rock strata, forming a diapir.

For a well explained and illustrated example of a salt dome hypothesis competing with an impact crater hypothesis: _http://meteorite.org/upheaval-dome.shtml

5. Kettle

Kettles are fluvioglacial landform occurring as the result of blocks of ice calving from the front of a receding glacier and becoming buried partially to wholly by glacial outwash. Glacial outwash is generated when streams of meltwater flow away from the glacier and deposit sediment to form broad outwash plains called sandurs. When the ice blocks melt, kettle holes are left in the sandur. When the development of numerous kettle holes disrupt sandur surfaces, a jumbled array of ridges and mounds form, resembling kame and kettle topography.

A picture of Kettle lakes in Siberia:

The text from Wikipedia is:

Kettle lakes in Siberia, adjacent to the Gulf of Ob (image right). The different colors of the lakes reflect different amounts of sediment or depth; the deeper or clearer the water, the bluer the lake.

Since the area in Chapan’ya is close to the sea and was covered by Glaciers could the structures not be kettle lakes?

6. Sinkhole

A sinkhole, also known as a sink, shake hole, swallow hole, swallet, doline or cenote, is a natural depression or hole in the surface topography caused by the removal of soil or bedrock, often both, by water. Sinkholes may vary in size from less than a meter to several hundred meters both in diameter and depth, and vary in form from soil-lined bowls to bedrock-edged chasms. They may be formed gradually or suddenly, and are found worldwide.

7. Comments
About the geography of Siberia see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Russia and _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia but nothing that specifically explains Chapan’ya area.

On volcanoes
I wondered if there could be an extinct volcano in the area: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes led to _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plate_tectonics_map.gif but nothing close within the last one million years, however an non-cited source on Wikipedia claims 99 % of all Russian diamonds are mined in the Sakha republic implying that there are extinct volcanoes. See location of mine with different map options: _http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Udachnaya_pipe&params=66_26_N_112_19_E_
On this page: _http://www.mantleplumes.org/Siberia.html a map shows the huge extend of long gone volcanic activity in Siberia, although it does not explain all forms.

For active ones within the last 10.000 years see: _http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_regions.cfm

The knowledge of volcanoes indicates, that the circles on one of the links that Erna posted, might have a volcanic origin, since the green mountain in the picture is Mount Hanang, an extinct volcano.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hanang&sll=70.318738,146.513672&sspn=5.124109,19.489746&ie=UTF8&ll=-4.522009,35.424385&spn=0.236497,0.304527&t=h&z=12

For a picture with map: _http://www.maplandia.com/tanzania/arusha/hanang/nangwa/ Refer also to: _http://home.hccnet.nl/p.f.koster/tanzania_expeditie_mthanang.htm
A close up of the center of Mount Hanang:

 

[thorbiorn]

Next a review some objects from or in deep space, followed by a databases of impact craters and impact simulation programs.

Meteoroids, Meteorites, Fireballs, Asteroids, Centaurs, Comets and Crater Formation

If the object is larger than a meteoroid, it is called an asteroid; smaller than that, it is interplanetary dust. The current official definition of a meteoroid from the International Astronomical Union is "a solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom."[1] The Royal Astronomical Society has proposed a new definition where a meteoroid is between 100 µm and 10 m across.[2] The NEO definition includes larger objects, up to 50 m in diameter, in this category.
[…]
Meteorites
A meteorite is a portion of a meteoroid or asteroid that survives its passage through the atmosphere and impact with the ground without being destroyed.[8] Meteorites are sometimes, but not always, found in association with hypervelocity impact craters; during energetic collisions, the entire impactor may be vaporized, leaving no meteorites.

A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space that survives an impact with the Earth's surface. While in space it is called a meteoroid. When it enters the atmosphere, impact pressure causes the body to heat up and emit light, thus forming a fireball, also known as a meteor or shooting star. The term bolide refers to either an extraterrestrial body that collides with the Earth, or to an exceptionally bright, fireball-like meteor regardless of whether it ultimately impacts the surface. […]Meteorites that are recovered after being observed as they transited the atmosphere or impacted the Earth are called falls. All other meteorites are known as finds. As of mid-2006, there are approximately 1,050 witnessed falls having specimens in the world's collections. In contrast, there are over 31,000 well-documented meteorite finds[4].

_http://geology.com/meteorites/ has a series of articles about meteorites by Geoffrey Notkin, with some first class photographs.

For a list of news about meteorites an updated and informative page is: _http://geology.com/news/category/meteors-and-meteorites.shtml

A short guide to meteorites directed to the Canadian audience, but useful for others to: _http://www.unb.ca/passc/meteorites/MIAC%20Poster-2004%20general.pdf (about 2 Mb)

Many natural science or geological museums have meteorite samples. In South Africa there are some at the Transvaal Museum, one of which one can touch! I recently went there, but found they could have done much more to make the meteorite exhibition informative, by putting it in a global perspective, etc. I hope more people will add remarks in the suggestion book. Or is the museum waiting for ‘a grand slam’ before more space and funds get allocated.

Regarding fireballs there is a Canadian form ‘How to report a fireball’ with questions needed to help calculate where an object entered, its size, and if it survived, where it landed: _http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/ Next an example from Alberta of its benefits, explaining what other information they gather besides eye witness reports: _http://www.ucalgary.ca/geoscience/November_2008 with the title: ‘Meteorite search update: 10 tonne rock responsible for fireball.’

Asteroids, sometimes called minor planets or planetoids, are bodies—primarily of the inner Solar System—that are smaller than planets but larger than meteoroids, but exclude comets. The distinction between asteroids and comets is made on visual appearance when discovered: Comets show a perceptible coma while asteroids do not.

The three main groupings of asteroids are thought to be related to the three basic meteorite types:
C-type - Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites
S-type - Stony meteorites
M-type - Iron meteorites

The centaurs are an unstable orbital class of minor planets named after the mythological race of centaurs. The name was chosen because they behave as half asteroid and half comet. Centaurs have transient orbits that cross or have crossed the orbits of one or more of the giant planets, and have dynamical lifetimes of a few million years.[1]

Comet nuclei are known to range from about 100 meters to 40+ kilometers across [..]

Crater formation
[…]
Impact cratering involves high velocity collisions between solid objects, typically much greater than the velocity of sound in those objects. Such hyper-velocity impacts produce physical effects such as melting and vaporization, that do not occur in familiar sub-sonic collisions. On Earth, ignoring the slowing effects of travel through the atmosphere, the lowest impact velocity with an object from space is equal to the gravitational escape velocity of about 11 km/s. The fastest impacts occur at more than 70 km/s, calculated by summing the escape velocity from Earth, the escape velocity from the Sun at the Earth's orbit, and the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The median impact velocity on Earth is about 20 to 25 km/s.

If the 3600 year comet shower this time come in faster than usual, then one would need to enter higher values than 20 -25 km/s when using the simulations to calculate the force of impact.

Notes about impact craters
A Canadian impact crater enthusiast Charles O'Dale describes his methods of looking for craters:
_http://ottawa-rasc.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Oldale-Articles-Introduction
_http://ottawa-rasc.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Odale-Articles_Possible_Craters

Daniel Connelly is looking for a crater in Australia: _http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080819/NEWS01/808190301/1002 I would be careful on this one, but who knows?

While searching for something else I came across “Ancient Crash, Epic Wave, By SANDRA BLAKESLEE Published: November 14, 2006” reported on: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/121969-Meteor-theory-s-impact-Cosmic-blows-could-occur-more-frequently but reading and comparing with the original, there turn out to be an important correction about the frequency of such impacts. It has been added in the comments to the sott article.

For a list with articles and pictures of recently discovered craters: _http://www.morien-institute.org/impact_craters.html A couple of them were first noticed as possible sites via Google Earth.

Databases of Impact Craters
When suspecting that something is a impact crater it helps to check, if it is already mentioned somewhere. The web page of the University of New Brunswick has a list with about 180 confirmed impact structures. On the FAQ they explain why:

Prospective new impact structures are only added to the listing if convincing details of shock metamorphic features, associated shatter cones or other similarly unambiguous evidence of formation by impact is presented, preferably in a published format. By excluding other prospective impact structures, we hope to maintain the integrity of the listing. As such, many promising but hitherto unproven impact structures are not included in the primary list. We are currently working on including a separate unconfirmed list

Another database from: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/ [Link updated 10th of July 2012] :

Siberian Center For Global Catastrophes
Department of Mathematical Problems of Geophysics, Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geophysics, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences

The above site has a Catalogue of Earth Impact Structures listing 304 structures, of which 187 are proven, 82 probable, 24 possible, and 14 have been proven false: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/Impact/english.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

Another fuller list contains 898 structures of which 192 are confirmed, 237 are probable, 413 have been proposed, and 52 have been proven false: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/index1.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

The map _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/Impact/karta1.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

Does it look like there could be a relationship between amount of research done in particular areas and the number of circles. And is there a relationship betwee the hardness of the surface and the number of circles? Or the age of the rocks and the number of circles they have received.

There is another map from Russia, which shows the data on impact craters and linear magnetic anomalies: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/map.html This is a geological world map, 13 MB! When I first saw this map I noticed some really big circles without explanation in the databases, or so it seemed. Also I wondered about the relationship between impact craters and magnetic anomalies. In case anybody else would like to know, next follows some explanations:

‘Traces of Catastrophe’ by Bevan M. French available as free download at _http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/CB-954/CB-954.intro.html has:

Magnetic anomalies. Magnetic field measurements around impact structures have not revealed any single specific signature that can be clearly related to the impact process (Pilkington and Grieve, 1992). […] The appearance of circular anomalies in gravity or magnetic surveys has already led to the discovery of many verified subsurface impact structures, about one-third of the current known total (Grieve, 1991; Grieve and Masaitis, 1994; Grieve et al., 1995). Surprisingly large and important impact structures have been discovered in this way: Puchezh-Katunki (Russia) (D = 80 km), Chicxulub (Mexico) (D > 180 km), the Chesapeake Bay Crater (USA) (D = 90 km), and Morokweng (South Africa) (D > 70 km?).

The above book also contains detailed description of rocks associated with an impact event, and crater types, but ‘The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes’ by Richard Firestone, Allen West and Simon Warwick-Smith does a better job of illustrating how the density and structure of the incoming object affects the formation of a crater.

For a practical example of the use of magnetic anomalies used to locate a possible crater see this study: _http://scsn.seis.sc.edu/Publications/GRLFinalDraft(web).pdf

02/19/2003 An Impact Crater in Northeast South Carolina Inferred from Potential Field Data
Pradeep Talwani*, Eric Wildermuth, and Chris D. Parkinson
Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 701 Sumter St., Columbia SC 29208. […] CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of circular gravity and magnetic anomalies strongly suggest the presence of a buried impact crater, ~11 km wide, to the east of Johnsonville, South Carolina. The river geomorphology data are spatially consistent with the inferrence of a buried crater and provide intriguing, albeit circumstantial evidence for a causal association. Initial petrographic analysis of crystalline core samples obtained from within the crater show some evidence of shock metamorphism, weakly supporting the interpretation of a buried impact crater. Indirect geologic constraints suggest that the crater was formed in the interval 200-90 Ma. […]

If one scrolls through the document one will see at the end some colored illustrations that clearly show the magnetic anomalies.
On none of the above maps did I notice anything near Chapan’ya.

Computer simulations of impacts with the Earth
‘The Explorer’s Guide to Impact Craters’: _http://www.psi.edu/explorecraters/ has a page with computer simulation programs: _http://www.psi.edu/explorecraters/simulations.htm
See also _http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
And _http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html has movie-like simulations. The title of this page is:

December 17, 2007, Sandia supercomputers offer new explanation of Tunguska disaster, Smaller asteroids may pose greater danger than previously believed

 

[thorbiorn]

From Around the World
If one has to look at Chapan’ya , why not look at some other places on the planes as well?

Is there a pattern? Are they related? There is more than one group of people looking at anomalies. The following people, I found, while looking for arguments around the Carolina Bays.

Here is thei concept followed by a few pictures and comments:
   

Michael's idea: when you swing a golf club and scrape the ground, you get a debit. We were sure that the Bays and the Mounds were the debits, now we needed to find the scrape in the ground. After reviewing the data we had collected we settled on the premiss that we were looking at Cometary Ejecta. By location ejecta formations were found to have similar style and orientation. In matching up a number of different locations in which the oval footprint of ejecta was present we also found a similarity in the mineral make-up.

Globally we were finding data that would be consistent with our theory. We came to the conclusion that we needed to expand our research to other continents where we were seeing strong historical relationships between what we viewed as cometary ejecta, grazing events and great climactic and cultural changes.
Our efforts and results: Perigee: Zero

That is what they call their theory. Without elaborating one the similarities, what differences are there between a swing golf club and an incoming low angle meteorite? First of all there is tremendous difference in speed, secondly the huge friction between the meteorite and the atmosphere slows down the meteorite and influences its path, and furthermore the lower the angle, the longer the exposure, and the more interaction there also is with the gravity field of the earth. For meteorite to move out or on after grazing or scraping the earth, like a golf club after hitting the ball it would need to have a very high speed while still being significantly subject to the friction of the atmosphere and the forces of gravity.

There may be an idea in what they suggest, but do they not make too strong a conclusion based on a too one-sided argument? To decide for yourself take a look at the following:
_http://perigeezero.org/treatise/Proof_sets/Denmark/index.html
_http://perigeezero.org/treatise/reference/kmz/index.html and _http://perigeezero.org/treatise/Proof_sets/index.html and
_http://perigeezero.org/treatise/reference/weblinks/index.html

Next some pictures with comments:
From South Africa:

For comments to this photo: _http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Number=349324 where one finds:

Cintos, the "lake bed calligraphy" may have been marked before, but your folder of oriented lakes is what I find interesting. Do you have any more to add to that? It is very reminiscent of the "Carolina bays" in the southeast U.S. and to another grouping of oriented lakes in southeastern Australia. Those lakes are described in this thread. I've found quite a lot about the Carolina Bays, but so far nothing about the Australian lakes. Your post is the first I have ever heard of the South African lakes. They are particularly interesting because some are being mined. Meteoric material?

Before the answer from Cintos/PerigeeZero, a few pieces of fill-in:
To take the last first, Hill’s idea that the mines in South Africa may be benefiting from old impacts has support among others too, although these were published later.

Platinum From Meteorites
October 5, 2008 | Europlanet

Some of the platinum and iridium found in Earth’s crust was contributed by meteorites. Dr. Gerhard Schmidt of the University of Mainz, Germany believes that a large portion of highly siderophile elements in Earth’s crust have a cosmochemical origin.

The link for ‘this thread’ in Hill’s post is: _http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/31403/page/vc 
It is mainly about the Carolina Bays, - by the way!

The Google link to the ‘Australian lakes’ is: _http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=81546&t=k&om=1 On this map there are five locations to look at. It would be good to know how many of these, if any are artificial dams, so as to exclude these from consideration.

These lakes look very similar in many ways to the Carolina Bays of the SE U.S. They are located in Southwest Australia about 180 miles SE of Perth. I have arbitrarily named groups of them for easier analysis. There are others outside of these groups.

One hypothesis about the formation of the Carolina Bays proposes that they formed such large ovals in some areas, not just because of a strike by pieces of a disintegrating comet fragments. The resulting lakes were so large because the glowing hot material, coming in at a steep angle, struck a boggy area and the steam created literally exploded large holes out of the soft wet substrate. Strikes on drier ground had much less effect. The Australian area is also an old river course. Could the same processes be in effect here? Any geologist or geomorphologist with knowledge of the area could be of great help here. I haven't found much by googling so far.

And while in Australia, there is from Perth; North West of the five groups of lakes:

See readers comments to the above on _http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/677491/Main/367970
EDIT, a couple of hours later: Somebody told me that the 'Perth formation' could be a sports field since:

The field may be round, square or oval – one of cricket's most famous venues is called The Oval.

and further more:

Australian (rules) football, or simply known as football, footy, Aussie rules or (erroneously as) AFL, is a team sport played between two teams of 18 players with a ball in the shape of a prolate spheroid. It is a football variant played outdoors on large oval shaped grass fields (often also used as a cricket ground), with four goal posts at each end.

Is this not hilarious? :)

Now back to Cintos’ answer to Hill’s post regarding the South African lakes:

The structure is present across most of the globe. I am attaching a keyhole file for Argentina.

The proposed morphology is discussed at perigeezero.org/treatise/Morphology/ejecta/carolina_bays

From Argentina:
_http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Number=366640

From Argentina see also:
their thoughts on “100 km long structure near Algarrobo Argentina”:
_http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=EarthTourism&Number=363602 and
_http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=363602&t=k&om=1 On the menu to the left one can select different options, which explains their ideas quite well, if not, as it still seems to me, totally convincingly.

US Southwest Playas
_http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=EarthNature&Number=391685&fpart=&PHPSESSID= has

US Southwest Playas: oriented Carolina bays?

What are Playa Lakes?

There are an estimated 50,000 of these landforms covering an area from Texas to Nebraska.

For more comments on these see the Weblink above.
A bizarre, highly strange peculiarity about at least one of these Playas: _http://geology.com/articles/racetrack-playa-sliding-rocks.shtml 

Mima Mounds in Washinton State
Mima Mounds Prairie is a geologically unique area consisting of large unexplained mounds that are either round or elliptical in shape, standing from one-half meter to about two meters in height, and having a diameter from two and one-half meters to three meters. -Beth Geiger in Sunset Magazine

There was a link below Sunset Magazine but it is now dead, however for reference it was: _http://www.sunset.com/sunset/Premium/Travel/2002/06-Jun/MysteryMounds0602/MysteryMounds0602.html maybe the story is stored in some Web archive.

From a Perigee Zero point of view the Chapan’ya lakes might fit into their thinking. About the not so far away areas of Alaska and the Canadian NWT they write:

_http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/369888/page//vc/1 which has:

DannyC73 is correct. These are a subset of the oriented/aligned lakes found along the Northern coast of Alaska and also across the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in the Canadian NWT. These landforms are associated with the mystical Carolian Bays in that they are aligned. However, their composition is different - being composed of gravels rather than sand.

I left out the picture from the post of DannyC73, because it is not there. However if you like a small detour, DannyC73 adds a short detailed explanation of the sale of Alaska to the U.S.A for a mere 7.2 million $: _http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/242074/page/vc/vc/1

It is alright to look at pictures and maps and make comparisons like the Perigee Zero people do. But to decide something about such a hypothesis and also regarding Chapan’ya, one needs to find out, I think, what the exact conventional explanation is, to see if it is good enough. And for that a knowledgeable geologist could be helpful.

Just as there are individual craters that have not been caused by impact but may look like them, so also there may be formations that share a similarity with multiple impact locations but are not among them. Are Perth, SW Australia, Chapan’ya, (Ady’s picture), Carolina Bay etc multiple impact regions? We do not know, but if one happened, maybe it could look like one of them.

So if we do not bother about finding out whether this or that place was hit multiple times, one can still benefit from the illustrations such ‘maybe regions’ provide, by keeping in mind that once in while these multiple impacts do happen. Maybe a bit more often than many would like to think! And by continuing to keep the knowledge and expectations on an unrealistic low someone can better benefit from the mass psychological chock effect such an event would create and use it to increase control and programming. So if a multiple strike event does happen, one has to keep calm. Can a traumatized, chocked or panicked person be of much help to others?

 

[thorbiorn]

I was looking for data in a previous post and found that the link had died out, so I refreshed them without changing the other data.

Next a review some objects from or in deep space, followed by a databases of impact craters and impact simulation programs.

Another database from: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/ [Link updated 10th of July 2012] :

Siberian Center For Global Catastrophes
Department of Mathematical Problems of Geophysics, Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geophysics, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences

The above site has a Catalogue of Earth Impact Structures listing 304 structures, of which 187 are proven, 82 probable, 24 possible, and 14 have been proven false: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/Impact/english.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

Another fuller list contains 898 structures of which 192 are confirmed, 237 are probable, 413 have been proposed, and 52 have been proven false: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/index1.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

The map _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/Impact/karta1.html [Link updated 10th of July 2012]

Does it look like there could be a relationship between amount of research done in particular areas and the number of circles. And is there a relationship betwee the hardness of the surface and the number of circles? Or the age of the rocks and the number of circles they have received.

There is another map from Russia, which shows the data on impact craters and linear magnetic anomalies: _http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/map.html This is a geological world map, 13 MB! When I first saw this map I noticed some really big circles without explanation in the databases, or so it seemed. Also I wondered about the relationship between impact craters and magnetic anomalies. In case anybody else would like to know, next follows some explanations:

The fuller list has changed considerably over the last few january 2009. In stead of the numbers I quoted then I found the following:

241-proven - up 49 247-probable - up 10 1341-possible - up 828 200-unestablished - new category 13-discredited - up 39

When one reads the Russian table there is a column called "Prob". 0 is confirmed, 1 is probable, 2 is possible, 3 is unestablished and 4 is discredited. If one follows the link one finds the research papers and data discussing the crater or a page with a new link which then leads to the research papers. Of these I clicked a couple and found that they led to _http://www.impaktnamen.de/ which has details and explanations of classifications if one goes still deeper.