Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Spots Massive Object Hidden Under the Frozen Wastes of Antarctica (thesun.co.uk)

schwit1 quotes a report from The Sun: Scientists believe a massive object which could change our understanding of history is hidden beneath the Antarctic ice. The huge and mysterious "anomaly" is thought to be lurking beneath the frozen wastes of an area called Wilkes Land. It stretches for a distance of 151 miles across and has a maximum depth of about 848 meters. Some researchers believe it is the remains of a truly massive asteroid which was more than twice the size of the Chicxulub space rock which wiped out the dinosaurs. If this explanation is true, it could mean this killer asteroid caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event which killed 96 percent of Earth's sea creatures and up to 70 percent of the vertebrate organisms living on land.This "Wilkes Land gravity anomaly" was first uncovered in 2006, when NASA satellites spotted gravitational changes which indicated the presence of a huge object sitting in the middle of a 300 mile wide impact crater.

296 comments

  1. Here we go by Isendur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?

    1. Re:Here we go by Z80a · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll bet on lavos due the catchy tune.

    2. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well it's black, and its edges have the ratio 1:4:9.

    3. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      City of the Elder Things beyond the Mountains of Madness

    4. Re:Here we go by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Adam, the First Angel.

      Brace for (Second) Impact!
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:Here we go by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      Those pesky Russians...

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    6. Re:Here we go by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most likely a large frozen nest of Godzillas.

    7. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought was that it is the 400lb bedroom hacker that lives with his momma which Pres. Trump warned us about.

    8. Re:Here we go by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      What are your bets guys?

      I'm betting that Kurt Russell faked drinking from that bottle and it was actually a molotov cocktail.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real Santa Claus.

    10. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi base

    11. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Europe, I should be safe. Southern hemisphere, on the other hand, brace indeed.

    12. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Alien vs Predator" obviously. Since the premise of that movie is an ancient pyramid found under the Antarctic ice...

    13. Re:Here we go by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Cthulhu. "Beyond The Mountains of Madness"

      ia ia fhtagn!

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    14. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?

      One way to find out. Bring out the thermite!

    15. Re:Here we go by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

      What are your bets guys?

      A Stargate, of course. Those silly things have a tendency to show up in the Antarctic.

    16. Re:Here we go by sudon't · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...a huge object sitting in the middle of a 300 mile wide impact crater."

      Yes, I think we can dismiss "asteroid" as too far-fetched. I mean, why would an asteroid choose to specifically land in the middle of an impact crater? Now, a Nazi base for alien flying saucer landings? It's the only thing that makes sense.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    17. Re: Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

    18. Re: Here we go by PFritz21 · · Score: 1

      Somebody call Richard Dean Anderson and get SG-1 together to go through and battle Anubis...

    19. Re: Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the ship that brought the hair dressers and telephone sanitizers

    20. Re:Here we go by breech1 · · Score: 1

      So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?

      Neither. It's where the Vorlons are hanging out while they create human telepaths. Next couple decades outta be interesting.

    21. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H. P. Lovecraft was there first.

    22. Re:Here we go by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      Cthulhu wasn't really involved in the Mountains of Madness.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    23. Re: Here we go by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Mountains of Madness, dude.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    24. Re:Here we go by lgw · · Score: 1

      How foolish we were to think it stopped there.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Here we go by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Yea, it was more of a reference as Cthulhu is more known than the specific Mountains of Madness story.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    26. Re:Here we go by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      +1 The black wind howls for a mod point

    27. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still want a "At The Mountains of Madness" film, and staring Ron Perlman in the lead not Tom Cruise.

    28. Re: Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't he hiding off the west coast of South America?

    29. Re:Here we go by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Screw Ron Perlman. He's too good looking.

      We need Clint Howard as the lead role.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    30. Re:Here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?

      Cue the storylines from 2001 and 2010....."buried magnetic anomalies"

      Or what about a storyline from the Stargate series...

    31. Re:Here we go by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      What are your bets guys?

      Ever read Ice Station by Matt Reilly? Researchers found something under the ice in Antarctica too.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    32. Re: Here we go by J053 · · Score: 1

      Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

    33. Re:Here we go by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Maybe is was the city of R'lyeh where mighty Cthulhu and his/its brethren sleep.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    34. Re:Here we go by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Also, there's no way an asteroid would fall UP and hit the Underside of the world.

    35. Re:Here we go by Maritz · · Score: 1

      They massively fucked up by not making that a movie set in the colonial marines' Alien universe.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  2. Obvious anomaly answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) It's the collected lost socks and keys of the planet. They all fell to the bottom.

    2) It's Cowboy Neal's porn stash.

    1. Re:Obvious anomaly answers by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Yo mama!

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:Obvious anomaly answers by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So, the porn stash then?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:Obvious anomaly answers by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      *unzips*

      I'm ready.

    4. Re:Obvious anomaly answers by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

      Porn stash and all the, ahem, used socks...

      --
      "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  3. of course, it's the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...predator hunting pyramid

  4. Seriously? by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously? You linked to the fucking Sun newspaper? For a science article?

    I'm done with this site.

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot and the sun are pretty much on the same level.

    2. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed. BeauHD should be ashamed for posting this. While there are a lot of sources that there is, indeed, a crater buried under the ice, there are no credible sources about a massive object being detected. In fact, a lot of the posts about thr supposed object are speculating that there's either a Nazi base or a UFO buried under the ice. Although either one might make for an interesting X-Files story (and this was done in Fight the Future), there doesn't seem to be any credible science involved here. It's a bunch of lunatic conspiracy theories, with no reputable sources. BeauHD should be ashamed of posting this. It marks a new low for Slashdot.

    3. Re:Seriously? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Link to a scientific paper published last June with a decent set of arguments as to why it is more likely an impact crater than other types of geological formation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273313440_The_Wilkes_Land_Anomaly_revisited

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      This was the very first thing that came to my mind as well... shortly followed by a bunch of expletives :)

    5. Re: Seriously? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Large (dangerous) asteroids do not survive their descent. Ever. The largest single meteorite ever found is only 60 tonnes (Hoba meteorite), and it took exceptional circumstances for it to survive (an extremely shallow entry trajectory). If an impact is excavating a large (or even small) crater, it's turning to gas and/or plasma in the process.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    6. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just call them "dipshits" for short.

    7. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ogilby, the astronomer, assured me we were in no danger.
      He was convinced there could be no living thing on that remote,
      forbidding planet.

      The chances of anything coming from Mars
      Are a million to one, he said (ahh, ahh)
      The chances of anything coming from Mars
      Are a million to one, but still, they come...

      You hear the music don't you??

    8. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? You linked to the fucking Sun newspaper? For a science article?

      I'm done with this site.

      Okie dokie. See you tomorrow.

    9. Re:Seriously? by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot and the sun are pretty much on the same level.

      No, The Sun has editors that actually edit.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    10. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See you, will remind you if I see you comment again :-)

    11. Re:Seriously? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Political articles have been posted on Slashdot for more than a decade and a half. You must be new here if you think it's only a recent phenomenon.

    12. Re:Seriously? by garryknight · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it when I see it reported in an actual newspaper.

      --
      Garry Knight
    13. Re:Seriously? by garryknight · · Score: 1

      The Sun is an average of 92.96 million miles from the truth.

      --
      Garry Knight
    14. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have you know that many ancient cultures worshiped the sun.

    15. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "This site has become shit a long time ago, when it started to publish political articles and was infested by Russian trolls and Trump supporters"

      Triggered. Liberals support everything unless they disagree with it. Then they support extreme measures to support stopping and banning what they disagree with. Effectively they're fucking scary people.

      From your friendly centrist AC who finds all extremists fucking scary but minds their own business most of the time.

    16. Re:Seriously? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The Sun has a large circulation and a positive revenue stream.

    17. Re: Seriously? by naubol · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you were triggered. The comment you responded to didn't indicate that the person was a liberal or in support of any measures to ban anything. Possibly, you're so easily triggered that you need a safe space? I recommend a room without a laptop.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    18. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. Then again it is on my playlist.

    19. Re: Seriously? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The comment you responded to didn't indicate that the person was a liberal

      "Infested by Trump supporters". I think it's safe to assume they're not very taken with the GOP right now...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Seriously? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I still fondly remember this site when every single discussion dissolved into how Bush was responsible.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      replying anonymously, wish I could give you all the 15 points I have....

    22. Re:Seriously? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      So, what your saying is that it is Bush's fault and we need him back to focus the nerd rage? Well, I guess someone has to do it.

      Bush is the reason why /. has Russian trolls and Trump supporters.

      I feel cold inside.

    23. Re: Seriously? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      "Infested by Trump supporters".

      Nah, this is just a fancy way of saying they were swooned by Trumps pussy grabbing family fun antics.

    24. Re: Seriously? by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, maybe something REALLY HUGE cracked the planet into the separate tectonic plates. Comparing it to the largest single meteorite that humans have found, on land, and recognized for what it was, leaves out all of the underwater area and things not recognized (assumed to be part of mountain ranges or other terrain). Random collisions might also explain why the different planets all have different axial tilts, despite being in (pretty much) the same plane of rotation around the sun. I believe that humans have a problem comprehending the immensity of forces involved and the insignificance of any particular life form.

    25. Re:Seriously? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I feel cold inside.

      Probably because the Bush recession and his cronies in the oil industry made it so you could not afford heat.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NAZI base is on dark-side of the Moon. Watch documentary "Iron Sky" !!

    27. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? You linked to the fucking Sun newspaper? For a science article?

      I'm done with this site.

      I had the exact same thought. My mind read as The Guardian UK and actually clicked on the link, then realized where I was and reading about conspiracy theories regarding secret nazi bases. I am curious to see if there is any actual data or articles on this.

    28. Re: Seriously? by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? After all the other shit that BeauHD posts - to the point that intelligent readers see "posted by BeauHD" and assume a load of crap that most likely has a left-wing conspiratorial slant to it (to align with her mad social media ravings about the evils of republicans) ... ...and you draw the line at the Sun attempting to report something non-partisan about a maybe scientific thing?

    29. Re:Seriously? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      you 3 must be new here...

    30. Re: Seriously? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know that many ancient cultures worshiped the sun.

      Nice catch

    31. Re: Seriously? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      +1 informative

    32. Re: Seriously? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Indeed. Large (dangerous) asteroids do not survive their descent. Ever. "

      Cape York Group (which when you put all the fragments together outweighs Hoba by about ten tons, with the two largest fragments coming in at nearly 52 tons combined.)
      Willamette.
      Mbosi.
      Bacubirito.

      All of those hit the earth with nuclear force and you can prove that by the stishovite found at each site. They all survived, otherwise we'd not have them in our physical possession and recorded.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re: Seriously? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're not getting that it's physically impossible for a large object to survive. "Releasing enough energy to cause mass extinctions across the entire planet" and "remaining with large pieces intact" are mutually exclusive. The "immensity of forces" is precisely the problem. It's like expecting pieces of the casing to survive the detonation of an atomic bomb. Only many orders of magnitude less likely.

      As for cracking the planet into separate plates, however, that's not that far fetched; there is a legitimate (although controversial) scientific hypothesis that such an impact weakened the crust there and helped allow for Antarctica to break off. And collisions are a leading, relatively non-controversial theory to explain axial tilts - although primarily collisions during formation and potentially the late heavy bombardment.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    34. Re:Seriously? by lgw · · Score: 1

      still fondly remember this site when every single discussion dissolved into how Bush was responsible.

      I remember the good old days when every political argument would eventually dissolve into an fight over OSs or text editors, and it was Gates who was responsible for everything.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:Seriously? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least it's more likely to be true in the Sun than the NYT or WaPo. The Sun does have some standards.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting link. Thanks.

    37. Re: Seriously? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Cape York is estimated as the largest ever to hit the atmosphere with survivable fragments, although Hoba is the largest intact meteorite. The parent of Cape York is estimated to have been 200 tonnes. Assuming the average asteroid impact velocity of 17 km/s (it was probably less, given that pieces survived), that's an energy of 2,89e13 joules, or 7 kilotonnes. You can technically make a nuclear bomb that weak (and thus call it "nuclear force"), but you'd generally call that a fizzle.

      Chixulub, by contrast, was formed by an impact with about 100 *teratonnes* of energy. Over *10* orders of magnitude more.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    38. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no dark side of the moon, really.

      As a matter of fact, it's ALL dark...

    39. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when JonKatz was blamed for everything!

      Nowadays, it's systemd.

    40. Re: Seriously? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Chixulub impact energies make me dizzy. The energy involved, for me, is unimaginable. I wish we could see something like that hit a rocky planet just to wake people up. Preferably not THIS one. Evidence has never been enough for a large portion of Americans. They need to see it with their own eyes.

    41. Re:Seriously? by lgw · · Score: 2

      I remember when JonKatz was blamed for everything!

      Nowadays, it's systemd.

      To be fair, everything wrong with the world is acutally systemd's fault.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    42. Re: Seriously? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A nice impact on, say, Mars would suit. With us having several decades leadtime to properly instrument it with every last piece of data gathering equipment and camera we can get our hands on, surface and orbital.

      It's crazy to imagine an impactor so power that even the heat from its reentering impact debris baked away most non-sheltered life on the opposite side of the planet.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    43. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some interesting news related to the Earth's axial tilt:

      The moon’s orbit, in particular, presented a major problem. Today, the moon is tilted 5 degrees, but Stewart says the original theory couldn’t explain why this was the case. “In the standard model [the giant impact model for the creation of the Moon], the moon should have no tilt compared to the orbit of all the planets,” she explains.

      To account for the moon’s strange modern inclination, Stewart’s team took another look at the collision that formed the moon. In their calculations, they ultimately tweaked some key details about the event.

      “Instead of having a Mars-sized body, we ask for the impact to deliver a lot of energy, enough energy to mostly vaporize the Earth,” Stewart says. “In addition, we want the impact to give the Earth more spin, so that it would spin about twice as quickly just after the moon formed, compared to the original theory.”

      And finally, the researchers reassessed what happened to Earth’s tilt when it was smacked by the assaulting planet. “We start with the Earth tilted way over, so that its tilt from the orbit of all the planets is somewhere between 60 and 80 degrees, instead of the 23 degrees that we see today,” Stewart says.

    44. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      there is a legitimate (although controversial) scientific hypothesis that such an impact weakened the crust there and helped allow for Antarctica to break off

      [citation required] I'm a professional geologist with a business interest in the tectonic history of the breakup of Gondwanaland, and I've not heard that "hypothesis" even from the kooks.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    45. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I wish we could see something like that hit a rocky planet just to wake people up.

      Wasn't seeing the carbon-containing compounds of a larger-than-Earth area of Jupiter cooked to a toasty-black enough for people?

      Nature laid on the "You're in a dangerous universe" lecture about a generation ago with SL-9. People chose to not get the message, because the message was pretty unambiguous. Hitting Venus or Mercury with something worse - say a Ceres-size impactor - wouldn't be enough to raise the attentions of most people. (I won't suggest hitting Mars - the debris would have a serious chance of hitting Earth in gigadeath tonnages.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Large (dangerous) asteroids do not survive their descent. Ever.

      [list of minuscule boulders]
      All of those hit the earth with nuclear force and you can prove that by the stishovite found at each site.

      You're both not wrong, just talking on different scales of things. For "nuclear force" to be significantly dangerous, you're going to need to detonate a significant fraction of the planet's nuclear arsenals - say a thousand or ten megatonnes. Sure, a hundred megatonnes could kill a few people - to the nearest million. but earthquakes get near that range too. They're problems that human beings have shrugged off as temporary blips in the population growth. Bacteria are far more dangerous.

      Take an intermediate - and iconic - undoubted (*) meteor impactor - the Barringer crater a.k.a Meteor Crater : size estimated at a few 10s of thousands to hundred thousand or so tonnes. Nothing identifiable as impactor material found on site. Hit at about the time that the first humans were entering North America. It couldn't even wipe out Stone Age arctic survival experts over a few % of the planets surface. Just not a dangerous thing. And nothing left on the ground from the impactor. Not even any reported isotropic traces (correct me if I'm wrong. Please. With references.).

      (*) undoubted - Well, there are lunatic fringes.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    47. Re: Seriously? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "And nothing left on the ground from the impactor. Not even any reported isotropic traces (correct me if I'm wrong. Please. With references.). "

      Direct satellite reference - it's not on the ground, it's BELOW the ground, according to the reading I'm getting.

      I do this all day long as a lucrative hobby.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    48. Re: Seriously? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      What happens if large objects collide *slowly* (at least, slowly with respect to each other, they could both be moving fast relative to other objects, like stock cars trading paint)? Crunch the surface layer, release lots of particulate and dust, change the spin, cause extinctions over multiple years of horribly changed weather (maybe with extra acid rain or other trace chemicals) rather than one huge explosion. I'm a computer systems engineer, not mechanical or geological; maybe I've slipped a decimal point or two on the back of this envelope.

    49. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      So, what are your scales and what data from Landsat are you plotting there. There is no indication of your data apart from a mention of Landsat8 in your list of sources. Without the context, I'd read that as two horizontally bedded units - which you've flagged pale brown and bright green - the deeper (bright green unit) of which has been exposed by the impact. Impact melt (suevite) you've coloured purple.

      Without your unit definitions, that's uninformative.

      I've never needed to look at satellite data (I use a hand lens or binocular microscope), so I'm guessing that you're making certain criteria of (say) IR band brightness to colour brown, pink, green or whatever, and that you've got some correlation section elsewhere to justify these pick criteria. Or some a priori reasons for making those particular picks. Grain size and degree of fusion are things I would expect to have an effect on IR reflection spectra, which is why I'm postulating the pink-flagged unit as being the ejecta. And the spectra of this unit differs from the spectrum of shocked material from the pale-brown unit just how?

      You do Landsat interpretation as a lucrative hobby? How do you make money out of that? Checking bullshit company reports so you can filter them out of people's portfolios (for a consultancy fee)?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    50. Re: Seriously? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      A hypothesis is a hypothesis. Why would you cite it?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    51. Re: Seriously? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "So, what are your scales and what data from Landsat are you plotting there"

      Those are iron/mineral signal readings and denote the type of iron or other mineral. Green = areas of exposed clay, basalt, marble, mica. Sand Brown areas = minor ferric iron (usually rust streaks.) Pink = Major Ferric Iron (almost always black magnetite sand.)

      The entire crater is exposed clay and basalt with no iron reading. This tells me the meteorite impacted and went through the crust to some degree. Iron doesn't simply obliterate itself - it's one of the hardest things to get a fission or fusion reaction from (as in essentially impossible,) so even impacting the earth it should have still left an iron signal at the point of impact unless it went through the crust and sunk into magma.

      "Grain size and degree of fusion are things I would expect to have an effect on IR reflection spectra, which is why I'm postulating the pink-flagged unit as being the ejecta."

      Zooming out, the pink area only shows to the east. If you go west, you get into signals of green - exposed basalt, marble, mica, etc, which matches up with the mountain area.

      "You do Landsat interpretation as a lucrative hobby? How do you make money out of that?"

      People pay good money to know where to find minerals, and I make money either selling them information on where to find minerals or finding the minerals they want myself and selling it to them. I've got tourmaline, aquamarine, lapis, jade, star sapphires (from California, no less) all sorts of cryptocrystalline quartz, etc. I also use this information to plan Southern California's oldest mineralogical society's field trips (I'm their shop, trip, and events coordinator/manager.)

      "Checking bullshit company reports so you can filter them out of people's portfolios (for a consultancy fee)?"

      When I do that, I'm always checking the site in-person against their reports. Most of the times, they MISS things in their reports (most recent: company had me look at a location in Jurupa two days ago for double-checking the accuracy of a minerals survey report; surveyor missed listing Axinite, Fluorite, Schorl Tourmaline, and Lepidolite in their noted minerals listing - they only had rose quartz, calcite, and garnet-bearing schist listed.) The satellite readings give me an idea of what COULD be found in a location, I always personally visit the site for any intense survey work.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    52. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is my IP address?

    53. Re: Seriously? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Constantly changing because you're a coward. You wouldn't last five seconds face-to-face against me, oh fat keyboard warrior.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    54. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      OK, I'll rephrase the question. If someone is seriously making this proposition and expecting people to pay it any credence, then they'll have published it somewhere under their own name in order to establish priority, and at that point they'll have included the best evidence they have in support of their hypothesis, as well as pointing out any holes in competing hypotheses.

      Who is proposing this hypothesis? (Like I said, I've not heard of it at the several Gondwana-themed conferences I've attended.)

      Where in the professional literature did they publish it? (You could just about squeeze Scientific American or National Geographic into "the literature". Just. New Scientist or National Enquirer, no.)

      If someone doesn't do these basics, then they're not serious about their idea and not worth the effort of responding to.

      I'm not saying the idea is utterly lacking in merit - it's just about possible. But I suspect that it's a mis-remembered variant on the concept that the contra coup stress concentration from the Chixulub impactor led to the eruption of the Deccan LIP (Large Igneous Province). That one has been popular for decades, but it falls apart if you try to come up with some numbers to examine it, and also has fallen further apart more recently on the dating front. Though it's popular in "science reporting" (e.g. "Discovery Channel" and the like), I can't think of a single geologist who has thought enough of the idea to attach their name and professional reputation to it.

      I suspect that this is another equally poorly-founded idea (if it's not the same one resurrected). I can't think of any good reasons to think it might be true, and don't particularly fancy spending the next 30 years fighting it's Hydra-like resurfacing, as one has had to do over the Chixulub-Deccan error. If someone has assembled sufficient supporting evidence to be worth publishing, then I'll consider it. But I'm not going to waste my time and effort on it because I don't think it's worthwhile. It's Rei who brought up the idea - let him do the leg work (he's well enough aware of how science works to know what is needed).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    55. Re: Seriously? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Interesting comments on Landsat data. I'll give that another read after making my dinner.

      This is where you're missing something :

      so even impacting the earth it should have still left an iron signal at the point of impact unless it went through the crust and sunk into magma.

      There's an alternative interpretation you're not considering. What happens to a half million tonnes (give or take) of iron when you turn around 1.5Ã--10^13 joules of kinetic energy (Earth's orbital velocity - impact velocity may have been higher or lower) into heat underneath it? (That's abut 3.5 thousand tonnes of TNT equivalent.)

      To put it mildly, the iron is dispersed.

      To a good approximation, for all large astronomical impactors, the energy released on impact is sufficient to blow the impactor - and a lot of other debris - out of the temporary crater and into orbit or into long-distance ballistic trajectories. Most of the impactor is vapourised on contact with the ground - regardless of whether it is dirty ice (boiling point Meteor Crater has no significant magnetic anomaly. The impactor was - to a good approximation - dispersed over the landscape. Debris was probably not confined to the North American continent, though this was, of course, an insignificant impact. The iron finds around Meteor Crater total some hundreds or even a thousand kilos, making for an ejection efficiency of around 99.9% or higher (depending on impactor mass, obviously).

      Iron doesn't simply obliterate itself - it's one of the hardest things to get a fission or fusion reaction from (as in essentially impossible,)

      Kinetic energy goes to heat ; nothing exotic. With enough heat generated rapidly, it is easy to get iron (or anything else) to go to somewhere else.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Better source? by piggz1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im not sure 'thesun.co.uk' is the best source for science news!

    1. Re:Better source? by Epeeist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Im not sure 'thesun.co.uk' is the best source for science news!

      Well at least it wasn't the Daily Mail.

    2. Re:Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to compare
      the express tells us it could be a secret government structure and that it was found on google. Also it tells us penguins live in Antarctica.
      The mirror tells us it might be a secret nazi UFO base or a portal to another world though it does state it's more likely to be an impact crater and the impacting object residue.

      For once the sun didn't do too badly, though I'm sure they're going to blame the whole situation on polish people somehow.

    3. Re:Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just you wait. Soon they will use Breitbart as a source.

    4. Re:Better source? by Dins · · Score: 1

      Why not? It's named after the Sun. Which is a star. Stars are sciencey, right?

    5. Re: Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still a notch higher than NYT.

    6. Re:Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sol is sciency, Sun isn't

    7. Re:Better source? by jrq · · Score: 1

      Weirdly, and I still can't understand why this is, but the Daily Mail actually has a really good science section.

      --
      My UID is prime!
    8. Re: Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats so arbitrary. Science is the method, not the nomenclature. There are good reasons to be organized, consistent, and methodical about that as well, but what we use for root words is arbitrary.

    9. Re:Better source? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Makes a change from blaming it on scousers.

    10. Re:Better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially not when they're quoting the know hoaxter "Secure Team 10", aka Tyler Glockner.

    11. Re:Better source? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Im not sure 'thesun.co.uk' is the best source for science news!

      At least it's not Slashdot!

  6. Well, it is either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the massive spaceship that brought humans to this planet or the city of the Elder Things

    fifty/fifty, one or the other

  7. Look at the bright side by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the bright side. It could be Superman's Fortress of Solitude

    1. Re:Look at the bright side by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Or it could be another giant UFO full of alien colonists missed by Mulder in 1998.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Look at the bright side by dtmos · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that in the arctic?

    3. Re:Look at the bright side by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If true, I would be pissed off on how many times Superman could had saved the day but didn't. Where was he during 911?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re: Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you lose your geek card.

    5. Re:Look at the bright side by DaveMikulec · · Score: 1

      You win the internet for the rest of the year!

      --
      "Shall we play a game?" -W.O.P.R.
    6. Re: Look at the bright side by Petersko · · Score: 1

      When the towers fell, I'm pretty sure Superman was in a wheelchair. Give him a break.

    7. Re:Look at the bright side by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

      Nah, entrance to the stargate.

      With Macguyver stuck at the bottom.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    8. Re: Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the underground come and joke mines the women were setting up for when Hillary won.

    9. Re: Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the towers fell, I'm pretty sure Superman was in a wheelchair. Give him a break.

      Superman doesn't care for NYC he lives and works in Minneapolis. Before anyone corrects with the imaginatively named Metropolis I am joking in case you didn't get the Coupland ref. Spiderman on the other hand, he lives there yet where was he?

  8. Article links only to other Sun articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't name a scientist or link to any science. Hoax? Hoax.

    1. Re:Article links only to other Sun articles by skids · · Score: 1

      It does name a scientist (after scrolling underneath the ad).. seems they refer to this. The talk page is also informative as to the academic disposition of the research.. It apparently wasn't quite worth the premature hype it got in 2006, and no justification as to why it merits another news article now is provided by TFA.

  9. Is it Iron? by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately I'm not a mining expert but isn't much (most?) of the iron available to humanity basically meteorites? I mean most of the iron that the earth formed with sank to the core since it is (much?) denser than the surrounding molten rock?

    And wasn't this thing detected because it was a gravity or mass anomaly? A chunk of iron that big could be quite valuable! Here comes the despoiling of the Antarctic, a job made possible by global warming and the "who cares" approach to the environment of our soon to be in office leader.

    1. Re: Is it Iron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although there is a concentration of mass at the center of the proposed Wilkes Land Crater, as discovered about ten years ago, it's not the remnants of an asteroid. Instead, it's believed to be due to upwelling of molten rock from the mantle as a result of the impact.

    2. Re: Is it Iron? by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep - just like the Sudbury deposit. Probably a great spot to mine, if it wasn't buried beneath ice and in an area where mining is illegal. Large impact crater floors tend to stay molten for so long that they stratify, so you can find portions of the deposit rich in different minerals, such as nickel, copper, and precious metals.

      It's one thing that Mars has over Earth in terms of mineral deposits. While Mars lacks relevant recent fluvial mineral concentration mechanisms, as well as those aided by life, by oxidation, and a number of other processes, it's also struck more often by large asteroids, and thus probably has more common stratified impact deposits.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    3. Re:Is it Iron? by athmanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, all commercially mined iron ore is from sediments formed in the precambrian when the increasing oxygen supply on Earth converted the iron in solution in the oceans to iron oxides.

    4. Re: Is it Iron? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      if it wasn't buried beneath ice

      We're working on that. And they said nothing good would come from Global warming.

    5. Re: Is it Iron? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I live in Iceland. Apart from the increasing habitability to pests, and the aesthetic loss of our retreating glaciers, it's pretty nice up here. Tack on five degrees and we're Seattle. ;)

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    6. Re: Is it Iron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in an area where mining is illegal

      It's only illegal to mine there if you're from a country which a) signed a particular Treaty and b) has laws which make violating the Treaty illegal.

    7. Re: Is it Iron? by lgw · · Score: 1

      if it wasn't buried beneath ice

      We're working on it.

      in an area where mining is illegal

      Drill there, drill now!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re: Is it Iron? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Seems weird. Why would Mars have more asteroid impacts if it is so much smaller? Proximity to the asteroid belt I guess.

    9. Re: Is it Iron? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Correct. In fact, given how frequently it's struck versus Earth, combined with how small impactors don't oxidize away, there are actually some proposals to mine iron on Mars simply by collecting and melting down meteorites. ;) The MERs and Curiosity have found a good number of them just in their slow crawls across the surface.

      Honestly, I don't expect anyone would ever approve of such a thing - pristine asteroids are just too valuable.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    10. Re:Is it Iron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-iron age, it was. Iron today is made from iron ore (iron oxide) by heating it with carbon, which drives off the oxygen leaving metallic iron. But before that technique was mastered, the only source of metallic iron was from meteors.

  10. Erm by looptron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Sun doesn't really do "news" or "facts". Given that they're doing "science" does this mean they've run out of celebs and immigrants to pick on?

    1. Re:Erm by gtall · · Score: 1

      nah, they just added the Ancient Astronauts Believers to their list of easily duped readers. They should have interviewed the Greek guy with the electric hair for the article, he's always good for a stupid quote or two.

  11. 2016... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2016... what r u doin?

    2016.

    Stahp!

  12. I'll look at the sun and I'll look in the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm on the right track yeah I'm on to a winner

  13. The Blob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aaaaaaaaaaaa!

  14. Seriously? The Sun? by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't you post a link to The Mirror as well? At least they don't dance around and call it a lost Nazi UFO base right away.

    What the fuck is going on with this site?

    1. Re:Seriously? The Sun? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      no wonder the Nazis lost, they couldn't even keep track of a base that was 150 miles wide.

    2. Re:Seriously? The Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mirror would spin it to be some anti-Tory or anti-GOP bollox instead.

    3. Re:Seriously? The Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first clue is the other articles linked to on the Sun's site.
      Certainly interesting pictures there.
      This graph is not one of them.

      The /. summary says something about a gravity anomoly, but the plot in the Sun is about nanoTeslas.
      Those units are about Magnetic field strength, not Gravity.
      I think the Sun's big news is that they rediscovered the South Magnetic pole.

      Such confusion is probably the business model for the Sun, but any nerd should know better.

      If you want the gravity plot for the area, it's here.
      ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/grace/Gravity_Images/GGM03S_SouthPole.jpg

  15. Nazi UFOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good 30% of TFA talks about nazi UFOs in Antarctica.

    Good job editors!

    1. Re:Nazi UFOs by meerling · · Score: 1

      Um...
      The nazis tried to turn an alien asteroid ufo that crashed there eons ago into a base, but it had xenomorphs and they all got ate or turned into baby xeonomorph incubators. At least until some badass non-human combat junkies dreds got bored with buzzing other uncontacted planets and decided to go there and party predator style!

      (Did I make enough references in that one? I could probably squeeze in a few more, but it's just about 3am here. Night!)

  16. masenger by hellobaby9877 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Zemana Doo Anti-Malware (30% OFF, coupon: BLACKFRIDAY30) https://goo.gl/2X2vAS Zemana Doo antivirus https://goo.gl/2X2vAS Partnership Opportunities Zemana is built on a successful partnership network. We have developed different partnership models so we can work together to further enhance security solutions and maximize revenue growth.

  17. Linky... by Svenberg · · Score: 3, Informative

    And for those that want to see the actual article...

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GC002149/full

  18. Clickus Baitus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not saying it's aliens, as that is a far stretch. Those damn rascally Iron Sky Nazis however....

    "Secure Team 10 suggested the Nazis built secret bases in Antarctica during World War II, which were designed to be used by flying saucers.
    The UFO hunters added: “There is some evidence of this coming to light in recent years, which images purporting to show various entrances built into the side of mountains, with a saucer shape and at a very high altitude."

    "Breakfast Means Breakfast"
      -- Theresa Mayhem

  19. Get it right by AndyKron · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 151 miles wide by 848 meters deep? Be more consistent with your units please

    1. Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we should encourage diversity and be inclusive of others!

    2. Re: Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      48320 rods wide and 168 rods deep.

    3. Re:Get it right by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 2

      For the UK, and this was in a UK paper, that is pretty normal and consistent with most other publications.

      Newspapers will measure large distances in miles, as that's what we use for our roads, but short distances in metres, as they're what we are taught in school.

    4. Re: Get it right by Desler · · Score: 1

      How many hogshead of cider would fit in that space?

    5. Re:Get it right by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I need to know how many Library of Congresses can fit inside.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re: Get it right by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I am more interested in the number of turkeys it would take to fill that volume.

      We need: Turkey Volume Guessing Man

      Crow: Well, behold, for that is my power. I can guess the number of turkeys it would take to fill any given space, for I am Turkey Volume Guessing Man!

      Tom: And this is useful because...?

      Crow: Sadly, it is not useful at all. And so my powers isolate me and I am a puzzle to the ordinary run of man, although women are drawn to me for my powers are fascinating. And yet there is no woman who can hold me, for always am I confronted by spaces of various sizes and I must guess the number of turkeys it would take to fill them, for I am Turkey Volume Guessing Man!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    7. Re: Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an area, not a volume.

    8. Re: Get it right by Desler · · Score: 1

      That's an area, not a volume.

      No it's not.

    9. Re: Get it right by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      why not use the "soccer fields" unit, them?!

  20. Seriously... by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 1

    Seriously!?
    When do UFO conspiracy groups becomes source material?
    I have read all that crap material since the time of the usenet, using TIN to check newsgroups and buying OMNI magazine.
    Jeezus!!... The material is repeated ad nauseam, at the time I was a teenager, but once one starts to see the inconsistencies that it is just a form of entertainment.
    Much like the fantastic tales of the middle ages and renaissance, there is always market for grown-up faery tales.
    If there is a large iron deposit in Antartica, great. But nothing like "Aliens" special.

  21. I know what it is by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously, this is the weapons platform the Ancients built. They already made about 10 seasons worth of TV documentary about it.

    1. Re:I know what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed!

    2. Re:I know what it is by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Was that documentary entitled Stargate SG-1? Maybe the Thermians will come looking for Col. O'Neil.

  22. Seriously by viralnewo · · Score: 1

    Seriously? You linked to the fucking Sun newspaper?

    1. Re:Seriously by Desler · · Score: 1

      And not even to the good part of the Sun...

  23. Alien vs Predator by Tim12s · · Score: 1

    Nuke it from orbit...

  24. Slashdot readers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spot massive click bait article in the Sun!

    1. Re:Slashdot readers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the latency is a killer!

  25. Come on... by damacus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can't believe you guys posted this crap. This is stale - the news itself about the land crater dates back to 2006. Next, this article is from *The Sun* which is akin to National Enquirer. Nazi UFO base? Give me a break...... The WLC itself is pretty cool and interesting, but there are other articles that would've sucked a lot less. Here's an example: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/heres... CHOOSE A BETTER SOURCE.

    1. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was coming here to post the exact same thing. The goddamn summary even says it's 10 years old. Then I Wikipedia'd the subject only to learn it was actually discovered in 1976. Good job /.

  26. The Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Page 3 is where the science is...

    1. Re:The Sun by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Sun readers dont care who runs the country, as long as she has big tits.

    2. Re:The Sun by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with that, makes the drivel they are told to spew out more interesting to watch.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    3. Re:The Sun by Desler · · Score: 1

      With plenty of massive objects to be seen.

    4. Re:The Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by science, I meant biology of course.

    5. Re:The Sun by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Funny. Your politico-geek papers are in good standing.

    6. Re:The Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bewbs!!

  27. Mulder, Skully - Could you come into my office! by burni2 · · Score: 1

    The inevitable X-Files reference!

    The next reference is "Star Gate - Antarctica"

  28. What moron posted this....? by womble91 · · Score: 1

    I'm aware many slashdotters have slightly less than positive feelings for this poster but why would anyone link to an article in The Sun.... That's nearly as bad as posting something from Fox News or CNN. It's a terrible source of news and they don't deserve any additional revenue from their articles being posted elsewhere. They are the sort of paper who supports xenophobic views of those like Trump and Farage.

    1. Re:What moron posted this....? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      True. The SUN seems to be more credible than Fox News.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  29. Which one? by Meneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So is this Homeworld, Alien vs Predator, or Stargate SG-1? I'm hoping for the first. "One hundred years ago, a satellite detected an object under the sands of the great desert..."

    1. Re:Which one? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Please don't degrade this discussion with reference to mere fantasy and non-existent aliens.

      If there's going to be an expedition to this site, it's Shoggoths they need to worry about.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the crashed Transformers ship (G1 cartoon).

    3. Re:Which one? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree.

      During William Dyer's expedition in 1931, the Shoggoths didn't appear to cause any injury to anybody on the expedition -- though in fairness, the survivors high-tailed it away as soon as they started hearing the Shoggoths coming. On the other hand, something even older than the Shoggoths nearly exterminated the entire expedition.

      It's also not clear that Shoggoths are of extra-terrestrial origin; they may have originated on Earth.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    4. Re:Which one? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      All excellent points, and we could no doubt discuss how humans would fare in the midst of a Shoggoth feeding event.

      Thank you for refusing to join the descent into nonsense we've seen elsewhere on this thread.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    5. Re:Which one? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      All excellent points, and we could no doubt discuss how humans would fare in the midst of a Shoggoth feeding event.

      Who is to say it's a feeding event that humans need to fear? We don't know a lot about Shoggoths; for all we know, they are more interested in vivisection than feeding.

      Or, for that matter, they may just want to kill us and move on. We certainly have no issues with killing mice & insects, with no thought to eating them.

      I think we can both agree that a human interaction with a Shoggoth will not end well for the human.

      The question is: How big will the mess be?

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  30. City of the Elder Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must have discovered the city of the Elder Things. Lovecraft already wrote about this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  31. let me guess by murdocj · · Score: 1

    They send a team out to dig it up and right when they unearth the creature a storm blows up and isolates them.

  32. Documentary by Subm · · Score: 1, Funny

    There was already a documentary on it, called "The Thing," by John Carpenter.

    Very informative and worth watching.

    1. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was in the Arctic. You're looking on the wrong side of the planet. I believe the factual piece named At The Mountains of Madness scribed by that geologist chap H.P. Lovecraft back in the 1930s would be more appropriate. So it's old news, too - in true /. tradition. Anyway, The Thing was based on Who Goes There? by John Campbell, also written in the 1930s and published in the same journal.

    2. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Thing was indeed in the Antarctic, but it's a mere cover story, as is the piece you name. If you want to know what it is, and what will happen, you need to look at Evangelion. If giant Tsunamis happen soon in the southern hemisphere, don't be surprised, that's just the second impact.

    3. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A truly remarkable, unbiased, and scientific documentary.
      If you enjoy the BBC series Planet Earth I suggest you watch this ...at night, alone, and in the Winter.
      For science of course.

      _

    4. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't that the second of three documentaries.

  33. Re:I'll look at the sun and I'll look in the mirro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take my clothes off and it will be shameless

  34. Nope by jocarren · · Score: 1

    The word "UFO" is featured too many times for the article to be credible.

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's ridiculous. While the object may be unidentified, it is most certainly not flying.

      UFO indeed. Hah!

    2. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe that stands for Unidentified Freezing Object!

    3. Re:Nope by Desler · · Score: 1

      It's long past the freezing stage. Unidentified Frozen Object!

  35. It's either paywalls or tabloids by joneil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the problem. A very quick google search will turn up research papers on on the Wilkes Land Anomaly, but they are mostly behind paywalls or "free registration", etc, etc.

    A person can play video games, read tabloids, browse conspiracy websites, watch porn or gamble for "free" online all day long, but the minute you want serious information on any topic nowadays, the serious research is almost always behind "paywalls". For the average person who is not involved in some form of academia, how many east to find alternatives (other than wikipedia) are there out there? More importantly, hwo easy are they to find and access as compared o the others? As long as we as a society continue to operate this way, then society as a whole will continue to "dumb down" in general. "idiocracy" here we come. :(

    1. Re:It's either paywalls or tabloids by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. Paywalled, for-profit scientific research journals have done more to contribute to the dumbing down of society than just about anything else in modern history except television (and not just because of the paywalls).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:It's either paywalls or tabloids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you are almost there, now just figure out why the want it this way?!

    3. Re:It's either paywalls or tabloids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps try using the preview button next time? For someone that moans about dumbing down the masses, you made a fscking shit-load of mistakes; thus undoing your point completely.

    4. Re:It's either paywalls or tabloids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sci-hub.cc

      You're welcome.

    5. Re:It's either paywalls or tabloids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many east to find alternatives (other than wikipedia) are there out there? More importantly, hwo easy are they to find and access as compared o the others?

      Even spell check and the Preview button are paywalled these days! I had to make a micro-payment just to make sure I don't have my own typos. ;-)

  36. Rather obvious now that it's almost certainly by sabbede · · Score: 2

    a crashed spaceship, with an outside chance of being the lost city of R'lyeh. Either way the course is clear - we have to dig it up and find out for sure. If we unleash a horde of alien conquerors or awaken mighty Cthulhu from his slumber in the process... well, we can figure out how to cross that bridge when we get to it.

  37. Well crap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There goes my summer vacation spot. Now what am I going to do when those pesky scientists and their nosy dog start poking around?!

    *Goes to a cheep Halloween costume store*

  38. Borg ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?

    Assuming "Alien" is referring to a "xenomorph" we might want to add Borg to the list.

    1. Re:Borg ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Assuming "Alien" is referring to a "xenomorph"

      "Xenomorph" just means "alien-shape." :-P

    2. Re:Borg ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Assuming "Alien" is referring to a "xenomorph"

      "Xenomorph" just means "alien-shape." :-P

      Borg are humanoid shaped, so xenomorph works. :-P

  39. Tekeli-li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I'm sure "Alien" seems like ancient history to most of you, it's clearly the ship of the Great Old Ones.

    Read a book for chrissakes.

  40. Another Possibility for the Object by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read HP Lovecraft's, "At the Mountains of Madness". It seems he may have been right after all.

  41. They finally found the Macross by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    We are only 17 years after what was predicted : that's not so bad.

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  42. Sounds familiar by george929a · · Score: 1

    They found Scout Ship 0344 containing the Genesis Chamber. Last I heard Luthor was in NY. Keep them apart or it will be Doomsday....

  43. Easy... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    very strong gravitational anomaly... Antarctic... This one is easy.

    It's a Stargate.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  44. R U Serious? by hjames · · Score: 1

    Absolutely - their PREVIOUS stories on this were "Atlantis under the Ice" - its the very definition of Fake News!!
    Their website says, in plain ink - "We pay for your stories!" STORIES, its NOT NEWS!

  45. Serious info cost money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a lesson everybody need to learn. Good information cost money. It cost time to gather, it cost expertise to learn to gather it, it cost time against to get that expertise. And time is money. So you get the news with the same quality you pay for. Pay nothing ? Get the copy/pasta PR release, editorialized to get the max impact advertising money.

    1. Re:Serious info cost money by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US taxpayer has paid for a lot of that research, the only reason it sits behind a paywall is because of the big name publishers that want to make money, not from you, the average joe that wants to read an article, they charge hefty fees so peer researchers have to pay in order to continue or verify their work. Some times researchers are even forced to pay for their own work when they move institutions.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  46. Over 9000 movies start exactly like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is gonna be... a very interesting and exciting rock structure.

  47. No to the obligatory XKCD by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    This one deserves an obligatory Far Side comic.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  48. Megatron ! by gearloos · · Score: 0

    It's Megatron!

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  49. /. has become the biggest tech-tabloid on the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you actually reporting about crazy secret UFO bases under the arctic ice sheet, as proposed by The Sun, of all tabloids?

  50. No need to space mine by Bruha · · Score: 1

    If that asteroid is as big as that and accessible it may be the most valuable mining site in the world.

    1. Re:No need to space mine by MFriis · · Score: 1

      That certainly depends on what it's made of. Best case is the asteroid is leftovers from a dieing star after undergoing multiple fusions. Gold forexample is rarer than carbon because it requires a lot more nuclear reactions, and not all stars make it that far. It's far more likely to stop at Carbon (which ends up as rocks) or Iron (FE). Simple way (but crude and potentially wrong in some cases) to see how rare something will be is to look at a periodic table. Fusion starts with Hydrogen or Helium and once it's over the nuclear reactions start going through the table until the energy is spent.

  51. I wonder by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    How many will get that reference ;)

    1. Re:I wonder by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I must have slept thru that part of the movie.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:I wonder by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Only old people like us.

    3. Re:I wonder by es330td · · Score: 1

      Not enough, sadly...

    4. Re:I wonder by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      please explain it to who don't got it (like me)

    5. Re:I wonder by xeno · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I feel old.

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
    6. Re:I wonder by dzelenka · · Score: 1

      It's from the book "2001, A Space Odyssey". I don't think it was expressed in the movie, so the target audience for the joke is literate old people.

      --
      Bah!
    7. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read The Sentinel by A.C.Clarke and then watch the movie (be sure to get the correct version).

    8. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got it. Inner Space right? Kappa. Maybe it's a floating seemingly edgeless monolith?

    9. Re:I wonder by quenda · · Score: 2

      It was only 15 years ago.

    10. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't say my knowledge of math is monolithic but I do notice that 1,4,9 are the squares of the first three prime numbers 1,2,3!

    11. Re: I wonder by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Thanks by the answer, but what movies (looking the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was not helpful to me...)

    12. Re:I wonder by RuaisLampSilog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't recall having the proportions mentions in 2001, I think it is mentioned in 2010, and it is definitely mentions in both books.

      --
      We all knew this would happen. Alas, we did it anyway.
    13. Re: I wonder by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Maybe a couple thousand ;)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:I wonder by lgw · · Score: 1

      2001. 2010. The movie for 2010 is decent, though I'm, not 100% sure it will explain the reference. The books are good though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? 2001 wasn't 15 yea... oh! I see what you did there.

    16. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I do not remember it being expressed in the movie, I have never read the books yet still got the reference. So it probably was.

    17. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math?

    18. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KappaPride. Pogchamp.

      "Please stop spamming the Chinese guyyyyyy."

    19. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    20. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The story was adapted and expanded upon in the 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, made by famous filmmaker Stanley Kubrick."

      Ty :)

    21. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Wrong'. -- Trump

    22. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throw 1968 into that equation....

    23. Re: I wonder by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      I'd say literate people. The book is still well known and available to all ages. ;-) (Whew! Got that covered.)

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    24. Re:I wonder by Hal9000_sn3 · · Score: 1

      Even though the mission is the most important thing to keep in mind, I do find these other references to be of interest.

    25. Re:I wonder by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      As far as I recall, there was a passing reference in the movie to the 1:4:9 ratio.

      However, that gravitational anaomaly was in tycho crater on the moon.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  52. There goes the neighborhood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen AVP enough times to know what happens next...

  53. The Sun does Science by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well Slashdot is quoting a science article from the Sun 'newspaper' so I think we are pretty much well beyond the Mountains of Madness now and heading out over the Seas of Stupidity.

    1. Re:The Sun does Science by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well Slashdot is quoting a science article from the Sun 'newspaper'

      I missed that. Non-UK Slashdotters might not know that The Sun (a Murdock newspaper) is the trashiest daily paper in the UK, even worse than the Mirror. A Sun factoid is that the editorial policy imposes a ~1000 word vocabulary set up in the spell checkers (it may be 2000, variable, but very low anyway), to use a word outside which a writer needs special permission from the editor.

    2. Re:The Sun does Science by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Say what you like about The Sun's journalists, but they can all spell Murdoch.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:The Sun does Science by RuaisLampSilog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was trying to find a better source, but found none.

      --
      We all knew this would happen. Alas, we did it anyway.
    4. Re: The Sun does Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun has much credibility is BreitBart: therefore mathematical induction says it must be fact since we elected a freaking president through news sources like these...

      The golden days of news has passed and gone since the Drudge report. Now that's a fact I think we can all agree on...

      I anticipate and welcome a news renaissance anytime now...

    5. Re: The Sun does Science by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      You blame alternative media for Trump's victory, but you're still so brainwashed by corporate media that you still don't realize he's a boyscout compared to Hillary, and he's really the best we deserve.

      The news renaissance already happened when the MSM shut Ron Paul out of the election in 2012. What you're seeing now, and not recognizing, is the MSM clawing for their control back from "fake news" and "Russians" (a.k.a. the unregulated internet). The news renaissance is already happening, and you're still on the wrong side.

    6. Re: The Sun does Science by Gussington · · Score: 1

      You blame alternative media for Trump's victory, but you're still so brainwashed by corporate media that you still don't realize he's a boyscout compared to Hillary, and he's really the best we deserve.

      Oh give up with that brainwashed by media routine. Most of the senior Republicans know that a Trump presidency will be a net loss for most Americans. Or do you think they also get their information from CNN?

    7. Re:The Sun does Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Say what you like about The Sun's journalists, but they can all spell asshole."

      fixed that for you...

    8. Re:The Sun does Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And The Sun is quoting the known hoaxter "Secure Team 10". Which means there's at least a 50-50 chance the "anomaly" is entirely made up.

    9. Re:The Sun does Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second trashiest, maybe even third. The Daily Mail (aka The Daily Heil) is easily the shittiest rag by quite some margin.

      CAPTCHA: fragrant

    10. Re: The Sun does Science by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      "You blame alternative media for Trump's victory, but you're still so brainwashed by corporate media that you still don't realize he's a boyscout compared to Hillary, ..."

      Soviet propaganda detected. Agent Trumpski has risen and now we will see if he obeys his master or turns on him.... :D

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    11. Re:The Sun does Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even worse, The Sun article itself seems to be entirely based on a Secureteam YT release about the subject. Look them up on youtube sometime if you don't recognize the name and you'll see why I say that is even worse. No idea what this trash is doing on slashdot but it can't be a good thing.

    12. Re: The Sun does Science by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      That's what democrats actually believe. "Look it's a conflicting point of view. It's coming from a foreign nation!" All the while, Hillary accepts donations from Qatar, and promises millions of more immigrants will vote in the next election. It's amazing how close she actually came to winning. This is how poisoned our society is. I think we have little chance of recovering, except that now we have the internet and a free market media.

    13. Re: The Sun does Science by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      But this is a foreign nation which has blamed America for its woes and has had a grudge against America going back decades. Also this was a direct attack against the US electoral system using highly refined and targeted hacking and propaganda. In times when the US was a much stronger country that would have been seen as an act of war.
      I doubt there is actually any direct connection between Trump and Putin, Putin is probably hoping Trump will do as much damage to America, and its democracy and economy as possible. Putin may well have disastrously miscalculated there, either for himself or the world. Lets face it no one really knows what Trump will do. He cant remotely fulfil all the promises he's made through because they flatly contradict each other..

      We really do live in interesting times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    14. Re: The Sun does Science by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      You think the Republican Party knows what's best for America either? Trump disavowed them for a reason. Our whole system is effed up, not just the dems. You think I'm only talking about CNN when I say media? I'm talking about all of corporate media. Not even Fox can be trusted. Legacy media shut Ron Paul out of the 2016 election, but they were unbelievably brazen with their deliberate violation of basic journalistic standards and trust in 2016. They finally lost, though. They're losing control of the message to free internet media. Now they're hypocritically starting a war on "fake news" without missing a beat.

      These are facts. They are out in the open for everyone to see who looks. If you heard anything different, it came straight from corporate media and the Democratic Party. Good luck catching up on everything you missed these last few months without a peep from your trusted media sources.

    15. Re: The Sun does Science by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      But this is a foreign nation which has blamed America for its woes and has had a grudge against America going back decades. Also this was a direct attack against the US electoral system using highly refined and targeted hacking and propaganda. In times when the US was a much stronger country that would have been seen as an act of war. I doubt there is actually any direct connection between Trump and Putin, Putin is probably hoping Trump will do as much damage to America, and its democracy and economy as possible. Putin may well have disastrously miscalculated there, either for himself or the world. Lets face it no one really knows what Trump will do. He cant remotely fulfil all the promises he's made through because they flatly contradict each other. You see through the boldfaced propanda of Trump being in bed with Russia, but you think there's merit to the story that Russia hacked our election? Did you believe the story that Trump was going to start a war with Russia, that Julian Assange was working with Russia, or that the "fake news" (alternative media) has anything to do with Russian interests? Our propagandists don't even try to hide themselves anymore. They've finally been caught deliberately lying to us left and right, and they expect us to eat this up too. The truth is there is no real evidence of Russia hacking our election. However, we do know that George Soros provided the software for hundreds of electronic voting machines. We know that the DNC was conspiring to commit voter fraud. Heck, Obama publicly advised illegal aliens to vote.

      Putin isn't hoping Trump will eff up America (he knows Hillary would do that better). Putin is looking out for Russia's self-interest, and he's scared to death of the impending war. He gave a speech pleading to the American, saying he doesn't know how to get through to us, our media tells us nothing. That never made the media either. Putin just wants the candidate that promised to make a deal with Russia over the one that promised to go to war with them.

      I can't tell you everything the MSM has lied about, all I can do is tell you is to find a free speech zone, and start looking for privately owned, noncorporate alternative media outlets. Slashdot doesn't count.

    16. Re: The Sun does Science by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Sorry from outside the US where the media is more honest and less partisan it is 100% clear that Russia did hack and attack the Democratic party side extensively. Also know your facts - the biggest liars of all are Fox. Fox is owned by Murdoch, a global media manipulator and enemy of democracy.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    17. Re: The Sun does Science by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      Sorry from outside the US where the media is more honest and less partisan it is 100% clear that Russia did hack and attack the Democratic party side extensively. Also know your facts - the biggest liars of all are Fox. Fox is owned by Murdoch, a global media manipulator and enemy of democracy.

      First, your media only knows what our government and media tell them about this issue. Even if they were honest for a change, you can never be 100% sure where a hack came from. Second, whoa, you think your media is honest about issues that affect them? How is brexit? This propaganda about the Russians is going to affect you guys just as much as us if we go to war.

      To say Fox is the biggest liar just means you don't know your side lies to you too. All of corporate media is implicated. CNN, ABC and others were caught red handed, but clearly Fox is playing for the same team when it comes to the overlord's interests.

  54. That's not an "object" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sensationalist pricks! A ~200x100x1 km structure is not an "object" but a natural rock formation. Guess someone watched The Thing too many times. But we all have to eat, right?

  55. Asteroids unlikely to hit polar regions by MFriis · · Score: 1

    I must admit all my orbital experience comes from reddit and Kerbal Space Program. BUT isn't it highly unlikely that an asteroid would hit a polar region? Rotation of earth, aswell as our trajectory around the sun and our solar systems trajectory around the galaxy all make it much easier for asteroids, especially big ones, to come at earth from the side. The closer to the equator the more likely to hit. Based on all the the observed craters by the lunar and planetary institute (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/epo_web/impact_cratering/World_Craters_web/worldcraters_maps.jpg) it looks like the northern hemisphere is even more favoured to be hit. So with the low odds of it being an asteroid, what are they basing their assumption on?

    1. Re:Asteroids unlikely to hit polar regions by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Several interesting errors in (or behind) your comment.

      I must admit all my orbital experience comes from reddit and Kerbal Space Program.

      These are not very good sources.

      BUT isn't it highly unlikely that an asteroid would hit a polar region? Rotation of earth, as [ ] well as our trajectory around the sun and our solar systems trajectory around the galaxy all make it much easier for asteroids, especially big ones, to come at earth from the side.

      Take a look at the sky one night when you can see and identify the Milky Way. (Or, if you live in a light polluted area, use a planetarium programme with some claim to accuracy. There are hundreds - because the data is free.) Once you can identify the ecliptic (the path of the Sun-Earth mutual orbit projected onto the plane of the sky ; also a +/- 10 degrees approximation to the plane containing most of the non-solar mass in the Solar System) and the centreline of the trace of the disc of the Milky Way, you'll see that they're inclined at about 60 degrees to each other. In the 200 million years (-ish) orbit of the Solar System around the galaxy, this plane will spin around the percieved sky, even after you correct for the daily rotation of the Earth on it's axis. This has happened around 22 times since the Solar System formed. With about a 2 billion year history of impacting on the continents (~120 million years on the oceans) this alone would destroy your perceived correlation.

      For a second dent - consider the largest reported impact structure in the Solar System - the Martian North Polar Basin. Some 2000 km across. Centred quite closely on it's pole.

      For a third dent, don't forget the 23 degree inclination of the Earth's rotation axis to the pole to the ecliptic - that too is going to smear out your perceived "zone of non-impact" by ... well, 23 degrees of latitude.

      Based on all the the observed craters by the lunar and planetary institute (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/epo_web/impact_cratering/World_Craters_web/worldcraters_maps.jpg) it looks like the northern hemisphere is even more favoured to be hit.

      Most of the land mass of the Earth is in the northern hemisphere. A mere 100 Myr ago, it was close to 50:50 ; 400 Myr ago (about the time of the possible Ordovician spike in impact activity) there was a bias to southern hemisphere continental land masses about as strong as our currnt northern bias. Impact structures can persist on continents for billions of years (Vredefort in .ZA is around 2.1 billion years old, and we don't even know which hemisphere it was in within the uncertainty in it's age ; Sudbury around 1.2 billion ; the putative Stac Fada impactor (where I've personally collected samples and hand-lensed the outcrops) around 1.0 billion) ; impact structures in the ocean basins last around 0.1 billion years before being subducted. You have a deeply biased sample before you consider that the northern land masses have been considerably more closely explored than the southern continents.

      Your data isn't wrong, but it is inherently biased. It's like pre-1990 models of planetary systems that discounted the possibility of "hot Jupiter" planets, because we had no idea how (or why) they could form. Our data se then was biased by one odd example ; now it's biased by the ease of detecting "hot Jupiters" ; one day we hope to have a less-biased (n.b., not unbiased) data set. You've got to check for bias in your data sources.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  56. "Mutineers' Moon" reference by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 2

    I can't believe I'm the first one to post a reference to Mutineers' Moon. Clearly this is Anu's stronghold, and we need to invade it before he finds a way to take over the ship that replaced our moon.

    David Weber for the win!

    --
    A recursive sig
    Can impart wisdom and truth
    Call proc signature()
  57. completely idiotic by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Their source for the photos is Secure Team. Enough said. He's the biggest joke on Youtube and is a known liar.

  58. Old news? by Mockylock · · Score: 2

    Wasn't this found to be a mascon in 2006? https://www.eurekalert.org/pub...

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
  59. It's the wreck of an ancient spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inside, we'll find a hyperspace core, and a star chart with a distant system marked "Hiigara"

  60. None of the above by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    It's merely a mounting socket, with the topmost elephant still in it.

    What's worrisome is that they didn't detect the whole stack of elephants going down. I fear the top one has slipped off the stack, leaving our planet's stability to the vagaries of gravity and orbits and stuff.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  61. Pure Unobtainium by AshFan · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a conspiracy theory about the Nazi's build a huge underground base there? And Exploration vessels being dive bombed by Fu fighters from the sea?

  62. Crappy Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The anomaly was actually discovered in 1959-1960:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antarctic-science/article/the-wilkes-land-anomaly-revisited/44DCA3FC303E6FF82CD3259AD41A2437

    by this guy

    http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/canyoncourier/obituary.aspx?pid=173344814

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkes_Land_crater

    The mass concentration (ie. asteroid remnants) was first discussed in 2006.

  63. My bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bet - it will an alien thing.

  64. Unusual that so many hit continents by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    It is pretty surprising that so many of these have hit the continents rather than the ocean basin considering most of the planet is ocean. One hitting the ocean basin would not leave much trace due to plate subduction. However, if a large asteroid hit the deep ocean basin, what would the effect be, would the ocean water perhaps prevent the dust and so on from entering the air, instead you would end up with a tsunami , avoiding the climate change? Or would the force oft he comet be such that the dust would manage to enter the atmosphere anyway?

    1. Re:Unusual that so many hit continents by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
      The transient crater from a multi-km impactor hitting the Earth is tens of km deep. That wouldn't change much regardless of depth of ocean basin that was hit - which average around 4-5 km deep. The really deep toughs of the oceans are no more common than the really high areas of the mountains - very unlikely to be hit. They're also not very wide, so a 10km deep by 100km wide transient crater would extend beyond the sides of the deep ocean trench.

      Big impacts don't matter if they're on the continents or on the oceans. They're really good events to watch from a different planet.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  65. Impact craters are boring, punch it up a bit by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Nazis and aliens, at your service!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  66. I am disappoint . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of nerds ARE you?

    No Captain America OR Lovecraft reference?

    The best you could muster is Carpenter?

    1. Re:I am disappoint . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The best you could muster is Carpenter?

      The story is from John W. Campbell's Who Goes There? not John Carpenter. I don't think there's anything wrong with associating "mysterious object discovered under the ice" with one of the classic alien monster stories from the golden age.

  67. Re:critical thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The http://sci-hub.cc/ is working, it's a free service ran by volunteers... Anything that has a PMID/DOI: id thingy is downloadable through it.
    There's also Library Genesis, http://gen.lib.rus.ec that has tons of books for free that other sites sell.
    Anything else published can be found as a torrent, or stashed somewhere on some web/ftp site or the Archive.

    Should these glorious services be removed from Internet's surface by a thermonuclear strike in 15 minutes, you can always install some silly trojan or shell on a computer/server of your local uni or uni library and use that instead.

    While i agree, that an average person has no possibility of finding these, i disagree on it being a bad thing. Without skills in information retrieval, internet search and analysis, the average person will not be able to cross-reference the available research and form a critical opinion, no matter how easily available data is? Cos' they aren't taught these skills...

  68. Time for some Bal-Sagoth! by maharvey · · Score: 1

    First thing I thought of, of course. Bal-Sagoth - In Search of the Lost Cities of Antarctica

  69. Trump tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows what the hell is going on on the internet nowadays no one knows what's going on...

    Supports asteroid buried in Antarctica

  70. national socialist antartic base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dr. kammler had lots of time to dig his refugee camp in the wild!
    From 1945 to this day ...

  71. This brilliant source..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the Sun, has sourced....UFO hunting crew Secure Team 10.....for their data.....read on:

    "Secure Team 10 suggested the Nazis built secret bases in Antarctica during World War II, which were designed to be used by flying saucers.

    The UFO hunters added: “There is some evidence of this coming to light in recent years, which images purporting to show various entrances built into the side of mountains, with a saucer shape and at a very high altitude.

    “This begs the question: how would you enter these entrances without something that could fly and was the same shape as hole itself?”

    Secure Team also suggested the US Navy led a mission to investigate the mysterious continent."

    Since the Sun loves capitals and /. now references them for stories I too will use them here:

    SLASHDOT HAVE YOU GONE INSANE? I AM DONE HERE. BUY SOME INSIGHT INTO WHO WE ARE FFS

  72. Story from 'the Sun' ????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously how has this been picked up by anybody. The Sun is one of the earliest 'B29 bomber found on mars' made up garbage papers. This really puts the judgement of Slashdot into question.

  73. What?...they just found it? by abmw · · Score: 1

    I have, in all candor, known about this for years. Really. I just knew there was something down there.

  74. Watchmen by illtud · · Score: 1

    Phew. Elon Musk has taken my suggestion and is playing out Watchmen to avert the Trumpocalypse.

  75. And yet by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The far right speaks against NASA doing work with moving asteroids , or creating another Earth 2 on Mars.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  76. I'm Just Saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the source of this article is suspect, but I would also like to point out that that the first "stories" of mass extinction due to a crashed asteroid were indeed from the National Enquirer way back 1975? maybe earlier. And they were all pooh-poohed by scientists, but now it seems this is all "scientifically proven" now, so personally, I pay attention just in case.

    There's many stories that have broken in the Enquirer or even TMZ that were completely outlandish and impossible, but subsequently were proven as true, Gary Hart comes to mind, Reagan running his presidency through his wife's astrologer, etc.

    By the way, your capchas are fucked in the ass.

  77. Ta full quote. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
    Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
    Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
    Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.

  78. Magnetism not gravity. by MarkSlater4278 · · Score: 1

    it's due to the magnetic north and south centripetal vortex pulling atoms together into their tightest formation. the circular shape is actually hexagonal. check out electric field lines on facebook to get more info. it's the nature of magnetism. not gravity.