The obvious answer is to hide it and secretly prepare for a response.The obvious answer is to hide it and secretly prepare for a
response.
That's a notion that the article does not attempt to decide. The author has decided this without any evidence.
10. The claim is to connect an undated crater with several historical events, which did not happen at the same time.
9. The article misrepresents the data by connecting the current 2013 solar maximum prediction with earlier 2012 predictions that have been
scrapped.
8. This is mostly a continuation of 9 except for the SPT. For some reason the article avoids stating that the SPT is a radio telescope.
7. This is all speculative nonsense using the internet chatter as some sort of evidence. This section is the first section that is just fluff.
6. Climate change is discussed and then poorly connected to anything again using internet chatter as evidence.
5. The article misrepresents spacequakes.
However, as we progress in 2010, earthquakes are becoming more frequent.
This is just not true. The article is just a mess of claims. All it does is discuss the fact that earthquakes are not uniformly distributed over time.
The pipeline claims are just plain silly.
4. Pole shifts are demonstrably false. Hapgood was shown to be wrong 50 years ago with the emergence of plate tectonic theory.
3. The Vostok section is another failed attempt to support ECDs as claimed by Hapgood and others. It is a pile of speculations and misrepresentations
of the evidence laced liberally with false statements.
2. It is demonstrable that there are no unknown planets that can enter the orbits of the known planets. In fact it is well established that no
unknown planet sized objects can exist within 340AU of the Earth.
Here is where the article really goes off the deep end. It shows how the article misrepresents issues all of the way through the article. Take the
IRAS data. Here is what the article states:
The observatory made media headlines briefly in 1983 with the discovery of an “unknown object” that was at first described as “possibly
as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system.” However, later analysis is said to
have revealed this report to be false.
This article effectively lies by writing half of the quote. It lies again by not stating that the object was identified as a distant galaxy.
The next paragraph is poorly written with a seed vault and orbital perturbations mixed together. Seed vaults are not uncommon and preserve biological
diversity of plants. The gravitational perturbations were resolved when it was determined that the mass of Neptune was off by 0.5%. When the correct
mass was used the perturbations were resolved.
The final paragraph is a short list of ridiculous internet chatter. The planet could not hide behind the sun. The planet would not look like a second
sun. Do Jupiter and Venus look like second suns? To claim that Eris, which never gets as close as Neptune and is small could affect the motions of the
Earth is ludicrous.
1. Finally, there is the loss of power idea.
This is simply a list of things tossed together that have little in common. The ideas venture from the more factual to the fantastic. A liberal dose
of unsubstantiated internet chatter, lies and misrepresentations are used to support the more ridiculous claims.
