It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Linking to another website is not the same thing as creating a citation for your sources.

Any word yet on when you'll be able to provide a synopsis of that video for those of us who cannot view it? Just a paragraph or two is all I ask. You're clearly capable of doing that, going by your blog...




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

So you want me to condense an hour and a half presentation of evidence down to a few paragraphs so you can sit there and poke holes in those few paragraphs?

Should I leave out the topic of photodisassociation rates? How about the production of OH ions from silicates? Each one of those is worth a page on its own.

There's no way to condense it down to a few paragraphs.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Ok, well then stop referring people to the youtube video some people can not access it and others don't consider it a legitimate source when discussing science. come up with other sources to back up your claim. You're whole Im not your research assistant ideology is very childish and has no place on a discussion forum or in science. Scientist are not afraid of the task of proving they are right even if they have to go out of their way to do it.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BGTM90

I think you're simply scared to watch it because you know it will challenge your present belief system.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

A lot of hostility against alternative theories in this thread. It shows how small minded people can be when their understanding of reality is challenged. I for one support the EU theory. The pictures you provided show a distinct pattern, and I feel that you have addressed many points in this debate honestly.

S&F



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well you are certainly ripe with assumptions. How did you come to this conclusion?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Does that proof include the lava flows photographed on Io?

Oh wait, that would ruin the EU theory, so of course, lava doesn't exist on Io...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: BGTM90

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist



Well you have just disproven your theory because there are astroids with elliptical orbit and there have also been found comets that stay in the astroid belt.





It's all based on how charged the object is. If the composition of some does not allow them to acquire enough of a negative charge while at their farthest distance, they will not discharge as they approach.




And now we have my favorite logical fallacy, circular reasoning. The charge is based on composition. And we can tell composition based on charge.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008


originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


originally posted by: wmd_2008


originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist



This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.







Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges




Right here:



www.libertariannews.org...




Oh the old circular argument, M S




Because pointing to an enormous electrical discharge that's machining the surface of a moon is a circular argument.




Why is that moon round then?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist



Does that proof include the lava flows photographed on Io?



Oh wait, that would ruin the EU theory, so of course, lava doesn't exist on Io...

Boom. Never ever expect him to answer something like that. It truly is impossible to have honest debate with him, I have given up trying.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

So you want me to condense an hour and a half presentation of evidence down to a few paragraphs...


Yes. That is exactly what I am asking.


...so you can sit there and poke holes in those few paragraphs?


Hardly. More so I can better understand what ideas the video is trying to convey. Then we can provide counterpoints, to which you can provide another counterpoint, and so on and so on. That's how discussions work. So far, we have provided counterpoints and you have either ignored or downplayed them, without actually addressing anything anyone else has had to say.



Should I leave out the topic of photodisassociation rates? How about the production of OH ions from silicates?


If it's pertinent to the ideas presented in the video, then it should probably be included for the benefit of myself and others.



There's no way to condense it down to a few paragraphs.


Research papers dozens of pages long can be condensed to a small abstract, usually not longer than a few paragraphs. I'm sure it can be done with a 90+ minute video.


originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I think you're simply scared to watch it because you know it will challenge your present belief system.


That's a bit presumptious, however the same could be said for your unwillingness to answer our questions and elaborate on your sources. As in, "I think you're simply scared to prevent more evidence because you know we will poke holes all through it." Just an example...

a reply to: AlphaHawk

So far the pictures I linked to previously of the lava flows on Io have been ignored by AnarchoCapitalist.

Just in case my three part post was too long and they were missed, here they are again: Here and here.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Can anyone give me a fair reason why this YT promo shouldn't be trashed?

No, a really good reason?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Had he actually discussed the video and used it as a reference, I would say leave it. The fact he refuses to discuss it and demands everyone watch it ... it rubs me the wrong way.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I'm willing to discuss it plenty.

Of course, in order to have a discussion, rather than a lecture, people actually have to have something intelligent to say about it. It seems rather hard for them to do so without having seen the video first.

The fact that people seem offended at me telling them to watch, or simply posting it here, tells me that they don't have an open mind to discuss this topic. It's my thread, on the topic of that video, which directly relates to the repeated shapes of those comets we observe.

I'm not forcing anyone to read this post.

I'm not forcing anyone to comment in this thread.

They could simply walk away from this, but they can't.

Fear compels them to shout me down without even looking at the evidence presented.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Fear compels them to shout me down without even looking at the evidence presented.






Fear .. or a dislike of ignorance. How about you comment on the lava flows that have been presented you have avoided like the plague?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It seems rather hard for them to do so without having seen the video first.


Actually no its not you make the points made in the video and explain why you think it is right and then some one can then respond why they think it is right or wrong. Are you trying to prove a theory or are your trying to prove a youtube video? I mean you can't possibly think that just saying its in a video on the internet is a valid claim for anything and you may very well have a valid claim but your refusal to explain anything certainly points in the other direction. I've actually watch all of the EU theory videos from the thunderbolts website probably before you even did, I just wanted you to actually explain something, and have a constructive scientific discussion but you just don't seem interested in that.
edit on 7-8-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Fear compels them to shout me down without even looking at the evidence presented.






Fear .. or a dislike of ignorance. How about you comment on the lava flows that have been presented you have avoided like the plague?


OK.

There are no lava flows.

Read the captions beneath those pictures on the NASA site:

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

White and orange areas on the left side of the picture show newly erupted hot lava, seen in this false color image because of infrared emission.


The pretty orange "lava" isn't lava, it's an infrared heat source - it's a plasma discharge. I expressly mentioned this in the article I linked, in which I also link that same picture because of the unusual formations surrounding the so-called "volcano."

Of course, if you read the article, you would already know that, so you wouldn't be asking me for an explanation about lava flows.

This picture:
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Is also in false color.


The colorfulness of the image is only slightly enhanced from what the human eye would see on the scene. The red in the image includes a small amount of infrared energy.


They again tweaked the red to make it look like lava, but it's nothing but a heat source. Again, this is a plasma discharge creating infrared heat source, not lava.

Think about it this way. Let's say that really was lava and it really did look like that in real life. Do you think NASA would go through the trouble of ruining that awesome picture by adding in the infrared spectrum?

HELL NO!

They only added in the infrared because they wanted it to appear as lava. They NEED it to be lava, so they create fake pictures to support their beliefs. If they had actual pictures of lava, the last thing on this planet they would do is cover it up with an infrared tweak.


edit on 8/7/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

And what would NASA have to gain by spreading a false picture of how the universe works?

Seeing as their job is to, y'know, explore and understand the universe, why would they deliberately try to misunderstand it?

It makes no sense. Just like the whole EU theory.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

And what would NASA have to gain by spreading a false picture of how the universe works?



You do not understand academia at all.

If you think they have nothing to lose by kicking the standard model, I'm hard pressed to even know where to begin.

How many billions have been spent on particle accelerators?

How many billions have been spent on gravitational wave experiments or other tests of relativity?

Do you have any idea what the ramifications are?

ALL OF THAT - ALL OF THAT - is tied up in that picture of Io.

All those rock star physicists you see on TV? What good is their knowledge if GR is entirely wrong, and everything is predicated on electrical engineering principles? You think they are going to let all that status and prestige go? You think they are going to give up their control of funding so some electrical engineers can take over?

Modern academia is full of the most corrupt, criminal, wasteful, disgusting basement dwelling people on the planet.


edit on 8/7/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Which is why it's impossible to have an honest debate with you. Every time you say something is a fork and it's shown to be a spoon, you claim there is no spoon and move on. Sorry, this isn't the Matrix, the spoon is real.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join