Talk:South Pole-Aitken basin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Moon WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Moon-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the priority scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

It is pointless using an encylopedia which refuses to acknowledge the facts.

I had edited this entry with vital current information from a reliable source only to find it was removed in order to preserve the misconceptions which are prevalent regarding the moon.

It is sad that people do not have the maturity to face reality as it is.

Observe the titanium distribution of the moon as shown in this scientific graph from one of the worlds leading educational astrophysical institutions. They have numerous PhD's on staff. This is valid data from Clementine, yet the data I posted here, which is of critical importance to the understanding of the nature of the moon, has been removed.

Judge for yourself why that might have been done.

Upon looking at the below graph, notice that the albedo graph is complete and not missing data in areas, and neither is the titanium graph missing data. The areas shown in black merely have little titanium. The only titanium in the black areas is spotty and more concentrated.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html

Please examine their credibility before you remove data from this public encyclopedia. Thankyou. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/sci_staff.shtml

(In reply to User:24.68.204.74 who posted the above) The data you posted certainly seems valid. How does this lend weight to the idea that the Moon is artificial however?? EddEdmondson 16:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Examine, the geometric position, of the concentrations (in red, and lighter blue as per the graphing) of titanium.

Please see the hi res link, at the bottom of that page, for a better more concise view.

There's no evidence there of the Moon being artificial. This is why the content will be removed from the page. You'll need to make a very convincing case of this for it to survive on Wikipedia as your interpretation of the data you've posted goes against the general scientific consensus on the matter. Edit - I should of course be pointing out NPOV policies as below, as there could be a place on Wikipedia for these ideas if that place is chosen carefully. EddEdmondson 17:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, I invite you to examine the credibility of the institution, and ask yourself what the current scientific concensus might be. If you select to ignore the data which is before your eyes that is your perogative. Denial is prevalent in this field of study. However, if you wish to explain your reasoning, and explain in detail, the red concentrated portions of titanium or the light blue less concentrated portions of titanium which are clearly set in an unnatural distribution, then please do support your assertion.

I don't dispute the credibility of the institution, or the credibility of the data. I dispute the credibility of your interpretation of the data (that the Moon is artificial) and I can assure you few if any planetary scientists believe the Moon is anything other than natural. If you wish to include your ideas on Wikipedia then you'll have to be very careful how you go about it as many will remove it if it fails to go along with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). Finally to deal with your most recent edit to the above comment you need to demonstrate that the titanium distribution is a) unnatural and if so b) that it indicates the Moon is artificial.

Lastly I'll say that I won't continue to watch this page or discuss it. Other Wikipedians will no doubt take care of making sure that your ideas can be included in an appropriate NPOV way. (Edit: I will quickly add that Face on Mars is a good example of how to properly discuss a contentious issue like this!) EddEdmondson 17:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to let the data speak for itself. But removing the data, as was done, which I have now been forced to replace in a less conspicuous manner so as to get around the censorship of the data, speaks volumes, in and of itself. I can appreciate your viewpoint, but you are merely putting forward a viewpoint, and have thus far put forward no scientific basis for your viewpoint, other than mere assertion. And bringing such things as the Face on Mars into this discussion is ludicrous.

Examine the titanium distribution graph (bottom right) link above. Observe the black circular area Observe surrounding the black circular area, are short light blue lines. Examine the graph legend What are the light blue lines? How much is in bacon bits? How much is in salsa? What are the three laws of robotics? What are the light blue lines? What is the Prime Directive? Twinkle Twinkle Uncle Floyd. lol

[edit] What about Hellas?

A minor point here, but the article mentions that the Chryse Basin of Mars is "the only impact basin close to it in size". However, Chryse isn't the largest such structure on it's own planet. Further confusing the situation (and potential readers) is the fact that the Wikipedia entry on Hellas Planitia makes mention of the fact that it is the largest impact basin on Mars.

Also, what about Valhalla (crater) on Callisto? It's 3800 km in diameter according to its entry. Orcoteuthis (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)