Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

I see six-sided red lines. I don't see hexagonal craters.

[–] • 0 pt

They are acknowledged by mainstream. You can clearly see the shape in the images. The lines simply make then easier to see. Apparently you're the only one who can't see the non-circular hex shape.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

They don't. Also, current mainstream theory requires > 90% of all impact events to occur at 90 degrees of horizontal of the surface. Which is basically an impossibility. This on its own 100% proves the mainstream theory is garbage. Any "scientists" which pushes its all impact events are admitting they are themselves garbage and no scientist at all. Sadly, this is the majority.

Plasma discharges, however, 100% align with observed data and are easily reproducible to the smallest detail, in laboratory experiments. Which is actually the basis of sound scientific analysis.

According to reproducible experiments and the scientific method, they are not impact events, but plasma discharge events.

More info: https://youtu.be/5ThZZPCMXNU

[–] • 2 pts

All good and interesting, but the one thing they don't cover is the source of these plasma discharges. Does it come from the sun, or a meteor, or somewhere else?

[–] • 2 pts

That's an excellent question. Appears suns are the driving force of charge. This results in voltage potential differences. This is why, for example, the Shoemaker-Levy explosion was predicted by EU and completely surprised mainstream.

During the last century, Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet broke up and the fragments. The collides with Jupiter produced 21 explosions equivalent to over 200 million Megatons of TNT.

Mainstream also now supports charged plasma in space so long as you don't call it charged plasma in space. Even mainstream is tippying around the EU theory without actually crediting or acknowledging.

Basically the universe is filled with plasma of differing potentials. When different potentials touch we observe giant discharges and light emissions, as you see in stellar photography of giant gas clouds. It appears suns are the engines behind all this.

Likewise, that suns are electric furnaces driving nuclear fusion, versus the opposite of what is taught today. Which is also supported by observational measurement, in that EMF is confirmed prior to correlated fusion particle emissions. Implying electricity created the reaction rather than fusion creating emf.

Basically this explains much of what is observed without literal magic like dark energy, dark matter, and black holes.

[–] • 2 pts

Also, current mainstream theory requires > 90% of all impact events to occur at 90 degrees of horizontal of the surface.

Which theory is that, specifically?

Which is basically an impossibility.

It's not strange that most impacts on bodies with an atmosphere come from close to 90° because the more oblique the angle of attack, the longer the path through the atmosphere and more complete the burn.

[–] • 1 pt

The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

The odds of such impacts are statistical impossibilities which they offer as the norm. Also, the impacts which create such large craters largely wouldn't care about angle because of the required sizes.

Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit. Just like the theory of how the moon was created. More mainstream bullshit.

[–] • 1 pt

The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

It does:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html

But to your actual point, not dense enough to cause meteors to burn up.

Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit. Just like the theory of how the moon was created. More mainstream bullshit.

To your point, we have multiple kinds of polygonal craters on moons. Some are square. Some are "flat" on one side but not the other.

And we have explanations for those:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast26sep_1/

No plasma discharge theory required.

[–] • 0 pt

The odds of such impacts are statistical impossibilities which they offer as the norm.

That's a strange opinion to have given the physics involved. Think about it. Even an object crossing the Moon's orbital path exactly perpendicular will collide with the "front" of the Moon because the Moon literally runs into it. Some objects will manage to be timed just right to t-bone the Moon from the side, but it will be less likely that hitting head on.

Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit.

Debunked by what? In your earlier post you say plasma discharges, but what generates the plasma, where can we see the observations of plasma discharges, and more importantly the measurements of the discharges?

[–] • 1 pt

they are not impact events, but plasma discharge events.

Maybe some bombs? Just imagine that where there is a crater, once stood a city; and there is a lot of craters. Nothing surprises me anymore, so who knows...

[–] • 3 pts

The same way spherical bubbles can join and create a square bubble in between them.

[–] • 3 pts

The moon having large crators that can only be created by a 90* impact on the side that is always facing us is an impossibility on it's own.

[–] • 1 pt

Correct. I made this very point, yet dadudemon1 believes the infinite stream of impossibilities is the common cause and therefore it's the actual common case (nonperpendicular angles causing elongated craters) which is impossible. He believes it simply because someone wrote a paper saying the literally impossible is common. Lol. Yes, seriously.

We've got some great minds here.

[–] • 2 pts

Fyi: https://youtu.be/5ThZZPCMXNU

I added link to my comment

[–] • 1 pt

Came here to post this! Surprised there's not more awareness about Electric Universe topics at this point.

[–] • 1 pt

You can see how hostile people here are to actual science on the topic. I can accept that maybe this isn't the theory. But the fact remains mainstream's theories are completely debunked as garbage on this particular topic. As of now, afaik, EU theory remains the only contender which answers every aspect of planetary craters and does so precisely and repeatedly. Which is the hallmark of good science.

[–] • 1 pt

Structured atom theory just blows people away that I show it to. It's like their brain freezes up and can't comprehend it, so they practically immediately forget it. I've been watching / reading thunderbolts stuff for like 8 years, sometimes it's hard to remember there's a lot of background electrical knowledge required to put the big picture together.

For the low-attention-span peeps of these days, it's too much of a time investment to try and understand what's being put forth, let alone the Saturnian Hypothesis

[–] • 2 pts

Electrical discharge.

[–] • 1 pt

Richard C. Hoagland knows how.

[–] • 1 pt

to answer this question we first have to figure out how someone made the moon out of green cheese. maybe the same people that can make hexagon craters.

[–] • 0 pt

I notice this all of the time too.