Oolite Bulletins

Disembodied wrote:

I never knew that some fossils were radioactive. You learn something new every day!

Nice find, thanks.

So, whereas the majority of the rock is silicon-based stuff and not very radioactive, the mineral deposits which take the place left by decomposed bio-matter are slightly more radioactive, presumably because they form from dissolved salts which in turn are often metals salts and so may include radioactive metals. Hence the concentration of crystallised or amalgamated minerals in the fossil stand a chance of being a bit radioactive.

Makes sense.

SandJ wrote:

Nice find, thanks.

So, whereas the majority of the rock is silicon-based stuff and not very radioactive, the mineral deposits which take the place left by decomposed bio-matter are slightly more radioactive, presumably because they form from dissolved salts which in turn are often metals salts and so may include radioactive metals. Hence the concentration of crystallised or amalgamated minerals in the fossil stand a chance of being a bit radioactive.

Makes sense.

Also biological life tends to concentrate any radioactive isotopes in the environment anyway – especially marine life, apparently. I found another little snippet about radioactive fossils here:
http://dtectsystemsblog.blogspot.com/20 ... ssils.html

It's easy to debunk things, but far more difficult to arrive at a unified theory.

The amount of radioactivity present in fossils roughly coincides with extinction events and the ensuing iridium layers. It is less to do, probably, with crystalline deposits and osmosis than with the high velocity impact of rocks bearing large quantities of iridium.

There are anomalous fossils that beggar belief no matter their source...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg

Pitchblende, in what way is it naturally occurring? I may be out of date by a decade or so but there was no convincing theory that explained that deposit.

The moon shots... sigh... for me a most convincing evidence is the poor quality of lunar imagery. Consider that we can read a number plate from an earthly orbit. Why then is imagery obtained from satellites orbiting other worlds so poor by comparison? I've long suspected it is defocused.

[edit] I had a look at the basalt link but the images there are a world away from the regular hexagonal structures that form the giants causeway. Still, at least we know now what happened to the Hobbits [/edit]

Greyth wrote:

It's easy to debunk things, but far more difficult to arrive at a unified theory.

What would you like to see united, that is, a unified theory of what?

Greyth wrote:

The amount of radioactivity present in fossils roughly coincides with extinction events and the ensuing iridium layers. It is less to do, probably, with crystalline deposits and osmosis than with the high velocity impact of rocks bearing large quantities of iridium.

Good point; like the K-T extinction.

Greyth wrote:

There are anomalous fossils that beggar belief no matter their source...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg

It's a petrified tree. What about it?

Greyth wrote:

Pitchblende, in what way is it naturally occurring?

In that it is found in rocks. What makes you say it isn't natural?

Greyth wrote:

I may be out of date by a decade or so but there was no convincing theory that explained that deposit.

Are you referring to a particular deposit?

Greyth wrote:

The moon shots... sigh... for me a most convincing evidence is the poor quality of lunar imagery.

Evidence of what?

Greyth wrote:

Consider that we can read a number plate from an earthly orbit.

Indeed. I read an interesting article about that circa 1981 and how it is done. Yet we can't see the Apollo lander, even with the Hubble space telescope.

Greyth wrote:

Why then is imagery obtained from satellites orbiting other worlds so poor by comparison?

Because they are not using spy satellites to spot the movement of individuals, but wider-view lenses? But there is some cracking imagery of the surface of Venus and Mars available.

Greyth wrote:

I've long suspected it is defocused.

The Astronomy Picture of the Day web site (good God, just look at that aurora!) has some fabulous imagery and links to more. Because my monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, much of it is squashed to fit on my screen. so there is lots of hi-res stuff to be downloaded.

Greyth wrote:

[edit] I had a look at the basalt link but the images there are a world away from the regular hexagonal structures that form the giants causeway.[/edit]

Try an image search for "basalt columns". There's loads.

What would you like to see united, that is, a unified theory of what?

A unified theory that explains how things are.

It's a petrified tree. What about it?

The layers of sedimentation that enclose it span millennia. How could the tree not have eroded?

What makes you say it isn't natural?

What I said was that no theory exists to explain it's formation.

Are you referring to a particular deposit?

Yes - we were talking about pitchblende

Evidence of what?

Evidence (evidence is that which can be seen and in this case by comparison we can see that detail is missing) of collusion to occlude uncomfortable facts.

The Astronomy Picture of the Day web site

It is as you say, fabulous imagery, I might even go to spectacular but not of Luna.

Because they are not using spy satellites

No, they are using newer, far more expensive kit in far lower orbit without our atmosphere in the way...

As for defocus follows an example (which does not come from NASA but which does quote the frame - so you can check at the source. There are plenty of genuine examples of this kind of fiddling - I've checked a number of frames and yes, evidence of alteration goes back to the very first low pass imagery)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewphoto ... _EVIDENCE/

Greyth wrote:

What would you like to see united, that is, a unified theory of what?

A unified theory that explains how things are.

Did you want the social sciences included under that umbrella? I think they have some catching up to do...

Greyth wrote:

It's a petrified tree. What about it?

The layers of sedimentation that enclose it span millennia. How could the tree not have eroded?

Have the sedimentary layers been carbon dated to give a span of time? A lot of mud can be laid down when a glacier melts at the end of an ice age. And wood can survive intact for millennia when in oxygen-free mud.

Greyth wrote:

What makes you say it isn't natural?

What I said was that no theory exists to explain its formation.

So, what makes you say it isn't natural?

Greyth wrote:

Are you referring to a particular deposit?

Yes - we were talking about pitchblende

In general? It appears in rocks with other minerals. What's wrong with that?

Greyth wrote:

Evidence of what?

Evidence (evidence is that which can be seen and in this case by comparison we can see that detail is missing) of collusion to occlude uncomfortable facts.

Elaborate. With examples.

Greyth wrote:

The Astronomy Picture of the Day web site

It is as you say, fabulous imagery, I might even go to spectacular but not of Luna.

What did you want images of? The surface of the moon, to high resolution, taken from lunar orbit? Why would anyone want to do that when we've samples of rock to look at and sniff to see what it smells like (gunpowder, apparently).

Greyth wrote:

Because they are not using spy satellites

No, they are using newer, far more expensive kit in far lower orbit without our atmosphere in the way...

... with a wider angle lens.

Greyth wrote:

As for defocus follows an example (which does not come from NASA but which does quote the frame - so you can check at the source. There are plenty of genuine examples of this kind of fiddling - I've checked a number of frames and yes, evidence of alteration goes back to the very first low pass imagery)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewphoto ... _EVIDENCE/

Ooh, what a shame I'm getting up at 6 a.m. This one deserves some time but right now I need to go to the bathroom and wee because I damn near wet myself laughing reading the text on that page. 200 km high towers with no shadows discovered on the moon, but the photos smudged to hide them. Priceless! I shall look forward to exploring this treat in the morning. Thanks for that link. (Is it a spoof conspiracy site, BTW?)

Greyth wrote:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewphoto ... _EVIDENCE/

Seriously? The same site also proves conclusively that Madonna is a reptile. And that gods are appearing in the sky (over 400 since 2006!). And don't get me started on all the cities and temples on Mars (and Mercury!). And then there are the extraterrestrial politicians (although I'm not sure which of them he's referring to).

Have the sedimentary layers been carbon dated

Sediments cannot be carbon dated. Only that which was animal or vegetable returns valid results. Interestingly carbon dating returns two clearly identifiable results for ancient remains and invariably the larger is taken as representing the age in which it lived.

So, what makes you say it isn't natural?

What I said was that no theory exists to explain its formation. It's presence is unaccountable by any known theory. I did not say it was unnatural but I am unconvinced it was formed by the same processes that formed the strata around it.

In general?

In particular... by what process does pitchblende form?

Elaborate. With examples.

You were given an example. Did you, as suggested, compare the image with the corresponding frame from NASA or JPL? Ignore any claims as to what those objects are. Accompanying texts are, probably, not relevant.

What did you want images of?

What we were talking about! In particular rectilinear detail.

... with a wider angle lens.

There are multiple cameras, a wide area and high magnification

Is it a spoof conspiracy site, BTW?

Probably? I am only concerned with the image itself and do not bother reading any textual output which is usually by 'von Dunnykin' or similar. I'm glad whatever they say is the cause of mirth for you SandJ and I am beginning to suspect that I also fall into that category. There are some theories that follow plausible lines of thought as to what the smudges represent but by the sound of it they are not discussed on the site where the image was hosted.

[edit] Lol@Commander McLane - Madonna a reptile? I thought that was common knowledge! But the politician thing is almost certainly a typo and should read extra-testicle :/ [/edit]

Right from the start... the first manned orbit of Luna returned footage that was unusual. It's possibly best if you ignore the commentary as it is of no particular worth. If memory serves Patrick Moore did the commentary that we were exposed to in the U.K. and I suspect he ignored any anomaly although he would have noted it as he had eyes like a bird of prey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j24Q72ZpZFc

Greyth wrote:

Right from the start... the first manned orbit of Luna returned footage that was unusual. It's possibly best if you ignore the commentary as it is of no particular worth. If memory serves Patrick Moore did the commentary that we were exposed to in the U.K. and I suspect he ignored any anomaly although he would have noted it as he had eyes like a bird of prey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j24Q72ZpZFc

Watching that footage (just the single frames, disregarding the commentary), I'd have to ask why only the black spot on the left middle is circled? There is another black spot close to the right border of the picture. In the first frame it appears to be behind the circled spot. In the second frame it has disappeared altogether, and in the third frame it re-appears, but this time in front of the circled spot! Conspiracy-theory conclusion: not only have the moon inhabitants chimneys which blow out steam (or whatever), but they also have objects that can teleport in an instant. Much more likely conclusion: something was either on the lens or on the film.

Greyth wrote:

In particular... by what process does pitchblende form?

From "Minerals For Atomic Energy", by Robert D. Nininger, 1954:

The principal occurrences of pitchblende are in primary (hydrothermal) vein deposits, usually of the mesothermal (medium temperature and pressure) type, in igneous and metamorphic rocks and in flat-lying bedded deposits in sedimentary rocks. Pitchblende is commonly associated with one or more of the primary ore minerals of iron, copper, cobalt, lead, silver, and bismuth; and the presence of these minerals in a mineral deposit is one indication of favorable conditions for pitchblende. It is usually accompanied also by bright colored secondary uranium minerals where subjected to weathering or other alteration. The commonly associated gangue minerals are quartz and other silica minerals, carbonates, fluorite, barite, and hydrocarbons. Quartz, calcite, and dolomite are usually the most abundant. Pitchblende, in vein deposits, is most likely to be deposited in existing open spaces in rock formations, rather than by replacement of the rock itself, and the richest deposits occur where large open fractures were available for filling by the mineralizing solutions. There are no important pitchblende replacement deposits like those of copper, lead, zinc, and silver, where rock formations have been substantially replaced by ore through solution of the original constituents and deposition of the ore minerals.

(full text available here.)

However, there seems to be (or to have been) some dispute in geological circles regarding this theory: see "Continental Weathering as a Possible Origin of Vein-Type Uranium Deposits" by M. J. Barbier, 1974, where the author points out problems with a hydrothermal origin and proposes a role for continental weathering.

Neither of these articles, though, is exactly up-to-date, and geology, like all sciences, is in constant development (between the publication of these two articles, for example, the theory of continental drift – a major force in the field, obviously – went from rejection to acceptance). I have no idea if more recent research has refined or overturned either of these ideas. Have you seen anything which might lead you to suggest another explanation? Or which suggests that the existence of pitchblende somehow defies all current explanation?

(Carbon dating, by the way, is never useful for rocks, as you say: however, there are numerous other radiometric dating processes.)

Commander McLane wrote:

Much more likely conclusion: something was either on the lens or on the film.

Holly from Red Dwarf wrote:

...it was grit. 5 specks of grit on the ScannerScope. You see, the thing about grit is that it's black; and the thing about the ScannerScope...

The treatise does not explicate formation of pitchblende but lists the materials alongside which it is likely to be found.

It is true that fissile deposits can be found in seams/veins but it is also found in small quantities very close to the surface. In the latter case it is not unusual to find a larger mass at the centre of a scattering of smaller masses out to approx 30 miles.

How old is our species? Estimates vary from 150,000 years and ever upwards in extremes. However, all trace of our civilisation and culture, until very recently, could be traced for less than 12,000 years. Given any similar interregnum without natural global catastrophe our species could have, presumably, made the transition from troglodyte to bungalow dweller several times and that possibility may present the beginnings of a unified theory.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... /mann-text
This singularly peculiar and abstract construction dates from approx 12,000 years ago. Against all probability it appears to have been deliberately inearthed. However the fact that it is present and has been carbon dated by organic remains to the end of the last ice age turns our notions of what humans were capable of at that time on their heads. Our standard chronology of geology puts this at the end of the last ice age and at around the time that the continental shelf submerged. It is an ancient wonder.

Greyth wrote:

As for defocus follows an example (which does not come from NASA but which does quote the frame - so you can check at the source. There are plenty of genuine examples of this kind of fiddling - I've checked a number of frames and yes, evidence of alteration goes back to the very first low pass imagery)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewphoto ... _EVIDENCE/

Getting to the bottom of this and providing evidence has been annoying. So many of these conspiracy theory websites are so badly formed that my Firefox has crashed twice, both times trashing my part-written response. I've lost the link to the 75km long by 35km wide parked spaceship photo, and the explanation about the thruster problems on the Clementine probe causing bad imaging. I wanted to include some links to analysis of the 'spikes' that say what I see: image corruption, not photo editing.

Anyway, this bloke is the source of that theory: Richard Hoagland. Read the rest of that guff about him if you want - he is the source of the 'face on Mars' stuff too.

Here's a detailed analysis of another of his claims: link

When the source of the theory is so disreputable, I can't be bothered to put any more effort in.

But here is someone who exposes him as a fraud: link.

Sorry Commander McLane, I almost missed that and I have not the the foggiest notion of what the anomaly actually is. If it moves in the field of vision it is more likely to be associated with the foreground than the lens? Possibly one of those constipated dinosaurs. I only accept that in the foreground is the moon because Patrick Moore said it was.