Three questions for astronomers regarding Elenin

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by NyxOne

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Between the 11th and some other date is not 'exact'.

in quake prediction IT IS.

but still, she didn't say the word "between"… in actuality, she named only 2 DATES; March 11th and March 15th… however even if she gave that timeframe as a specific window for a catastrophic quake to hit, the number probability is considered astronomical for a human to be that accurate.

so you actually still deny she specifically warned a major and catastrophic quake AND earth-shift event would take place on 3/11/11 and its not EXACT?

do you deny that giving a 3 day window for a Great quake, let alone naming an EXACT date it occurs in that 3day window, is a level of accuracy considered to be RARE if not outside of humans to predict and know?

and can you name anyone other than 9nania or sollog that warned of 3/11 being connected to a Great quake?

If 9nania's prediction was no big deal, please show any other prediction or predictor thats been more accurate. Let me see you predict a major quake within a 3 day window let alone name 2 EXACT dates. You nor ANYONE has or could do that more accurately than either 9nania or Sollog.

These hits are far beyond coincidence if you know anything about probability and quake prediction.

It has been estimated by various seismic professors, that the odds of anyone predicting a major quake over 6.5, within 3 days and 250 miles of the event, is about 10,000 to 1 if they choose an earthquake prone area or much higher if they choose an area of the earth not subject to quakes.

And the real odds of anyone giving the exact date when a quake over 7.0 will occur is around 30 to 1.

Yet you claim its no big deal

Originally posted by NyxOne
She didn't even give any reason as to why one would happen,

Since when does the accuracy of a major quake prediction rely on or have anything to do with giving a REASON?

Originally posted by NyxOne
as I recall. She just randomly guessed.

YES, she was GUESSING as to the EVENT being in CALIFORNIA... but also stated it would most likely occur around the P.R.o.F.

SHE WASN'T GUESSING on the DATE....and that FACT alone validates the entire point i'm making.

Originally posted by NyxOne
Oh, and you haven't heard? That failed prediction for a catastrophic, devastating quake in California,

Wrong.

No where was her prediction specific to only California… That was merely ONE of the possible areas around the Pacific RoF she warned this March 11th Quake and Earth Shift would occur.

the FACT one did, validates the prediction.

So please show exactly where she singled out CALIFORNIA as the only location she was talking about for MARCH 11TH. The fact is her primary warning and prediction was simply that there WILL BE a major shift and seismic event on 3//11 or around 3/15 and this event COULD occur in California.

The only FAIL is your interpretation which ignores any context of the prediction which you claim is black and white or nothing else was explained or clarified.

Originally posted by NyxOne
after which she outright disappeared and hasn't been seen for almost a month?

because no one has "seen" her is another red-herring and has absolutely
nothing to do with the accuracy of her MARCH 11th hit.

so who cares why or if she's "disappeared" ? Her prediction about a quake occurring on or around MARCH 11th was spot on.

Originally posted by NyxOne
To my amusement, she actually said that a 'personal event' happened on the 31st, as if to give her prediction a shred of truth or credibility.

Whatever she "said" about some personal event and the 31st is irrelevant to her primary 3/11 & 3/15th warning/prediction having happened... and i don't see how you can draw any valid or logical correlation.

But again, your arguments logic and validity is only valid when no context is
given. The fact you refuse to use any context of all the statements she's
explained as to what she was predicting and warning of, makes your
entire argument worthless in measuring the accuracy of 9nania's prediction.

You're just going to keep going around heaping praises on her despite her obvious guessing failures, aren't you?

Whatever. Keep being her faithful cheerleader.

reply to post by jumpspace


quote "1) Explain to me how a 4km object generates a 33824km coma? " unquote

Friction,, as outer space is a vacumn their would be no stripping away of particles, the particles emit wave length freq. we see as light or coma and as objects in motion tends to stay in motion, the coma looks uniform,, now as far as solar wind, gravitational drag on the coma, this would effect the coma initially in the originating orbit and if the core of the comet stays within the same orbit it would eventually settle into it's own unique image.

Good guess?? all pure speculation.

Originally posted by NyxOne
Originally posted by truthseekr1111

You're just going to keep going around heaping praises on her despite her obvious guessing failures, aren't you?
Whatever. Keep being her faithful cheerleader.

While you continue your denial, I'll continue spreading the facts and evidence that validate her prediction, despite your inability to disprove it, let alone even address the argument or present any intelligent counter-argument whatsoever to support exactly how and where what you claim is true or false and failed.

Your evasions are only evidence of YOUR Fail to debunk her and having lost the argument.

reply to post by aceace


Hey thanks for that video, that certainly puts a few things into perspective for me anyway. We could be in for a rough ride later in the year .

aceace

At approximately 3 years to 12 months prior to passage the large “intruder” planet will enter the far reaches of our solar system and ignite into a huge comet, along with all of its companion bodies that are orbiting it as the moons of Jupiter orbit that large planet within our solar system.

When exactly was this written?

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by NyxOne
Originally posted by truthseekr1111

You're just going to keep going around heaping praises on her despite her obvious guessing failures, aren't you?
Whatever. Keep being her faithful cheerleader.

While you continue your denial, I'll continue spreading the facts and evidence that validate her prediction, despite your inability to disprove it, let alone even address the argument or present any intelligent counter-argument whatsoever to support exactly how and where what you claim is true or false and failed.

Your evasions are only evidence of YOUR Fail to debunk her and having lost the argument.

edit on 20-4-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)

It's funny how you misconstrue leaving you to propagate your nonsense as me 'losing', but whatever floats your boat, skippy.

Say, I know a psychic. His name is Uri Geller. Why don't you get in touch with him and see what he thinks?

Originally posted by NyxOne

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by NyxOne
Originally posted by truthseekr1111

You're just going to keep going around heaping praises on her despite her obvious guessing failures, aren't you?
Whatever. Keep being her faithful cheerleader.

While you continue your denial, I'll continue spreading the facts and evidence that validate her prediction, despite your inability to disprove it, let alone even address the argument or present any intelligent counter-argument whatsoever to support exactly how and where what you claim is true or false and failed.

Your evasions are only evidence of YOUR Fail to debunk her and having lost the argument.

edit on 20-4-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)

It's funny how you misconstrue leaving you to propagate your nonsense as me 'losing', but whatever floats your boat, skippy.

Say, I know a psychic. His name is Uri Geller. Why don't you get in touch with him and see what he thinks?

he only bends spoons, doesnt he?

Thanks OP for bringing this up.

Re question 2)

Perhaps one can provide a link for the benefit of all, showing how Leonid Elenin worked out the 4 km wide diameter...???

Perhaps, he should come out of his shell, and shed some light into the conspiracy community...

Until then, Elenin's likely size range thus falls between 48.367km and 108.153km as was mathematically evaluated.

reply to post by InnerPeace2012



Part-1

Unless it's got a piece of ANTI-MATTER stuck in its side from the explosion of G1.9 when it went Super -Nova and created a brown duarf super nova remnant called G1.9+0.3 which is basically a unignited piece of kindling from the Super-Nova and in an anti-mater stage, wich is headed this way and has captured in it's gravity well ,, 6 planet type objects,

Part 2

The piece of Anti- matter stuck in comet Elenin is drawing particulate matter to it's core, thus its size is growing expotentialy.

Part-3
C/2010 of course is now confirmed to be also headed in this direction,, and speaking of direction, thats right a little nasa misdirection cause you see Elenin and cx/2010 etc,, are one in the same,, yes chillen's it's got multiple personality disorder, lol,,
And why would nasa allow cx/2010 too be renamed Elenin when they already new it as cx/2010 shouldn't they have said "nope sorry it's not new so you cant name it, only original discoverers get to have it named after them,, they knew it was there Long before Elenin. So what gives with that?
Part-4

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by InnerPeace2012

 

Part-1

Unless it's got a piece of ANTI-MATTER stuck in its side from the explosion of G1.9 when it went Super -Nova and created a brown duarf super nova remnant called G1.9+0.3 which is basically a unignited piece of kindling from the Super-Nova and in an anti-mater stage, wich is headed this way and has captured in it's gravity well ,, 6 planet type objects,

Part 2

The piece of Anti- matter stuck in comet Elenin is drawing particulate matter to it's core, thus its size is growing expotentialy.

Part-3
C/2010 of course is now confirmed to be also headed in this direction,, and speaking of direction, thats right a little nasa misdirection cause you see Elenin and cx/2010 etc,, are one in the same,, yes chillen's it's got multiple personality disorder, lol,,
And why would nasa allow cx/2010 too be renamed Elenin when they already new it as cx/2010 shouldn't they have said "nope sorry it's not new so you cant name it, only original discoverers get to have it named after them,, they knew it was there Long before Elenin. So what gives with that?
Part-4

edit on 21-4-2011 by BobAthome because: whew

edit on 21-4-2011 by BobAthome because: lol

edit on 21-4-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

...G1.9 is 25 thousand lightyears away.

The rest of your post is comprised of English so terribly butchered I can't make heads or tails of it, but every comet is given a numerical designation and an actual name. That's been standard form for every discovered comet.

reply to post by NyxOne


Gee one spelling mistake, correct puntuation, new paragraph when needed, oh wait misdirection again,, any way it's

G1.9+0.3

Which is a remnant from G1.9 that is moving this way, it's a piece of G1.9 ,,, i know numerical labeling can be hard too follow but ,, see the difference,,,, G1.9+0.3 versus G1.9,,, spot the difference?

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by NyxOne

 

Gee one spelling mistake, correct puntuation, new paragraph when needed, oh wait misdirection again,, any way it's

G1.9+0.3

Which is a remnant from G1.9 that is moving this way, it's a piece of G1.9 ,,, i know numerical labeling can be hard too follow but ,, see the difference,,,, G1.9+0.3 versus G1.9,,, spot the difference?

edit on 21-4-2011 by BobAthome because: punctuation/maybe spelling who cares

Um, no.

en.wikipedia.org...

G1.9+0.3 is the actual name of the entire remnant. G1.9 is shorthand.

From report to the Vatican on G1.9


No G1.9+0.3 is a remnent of of the super nova explosion.

Anyone translate??


¿Por qué decimos esto?. Pues sencillamente porque las posiciones orbitales de G1.9+0.3 coinciden con
las posiciones obtenidas para Némesis en el simulador astronómico en esas fechas tras introducirle los
datos que hemos calculado previamente:
• Period: 25525 Años (precesión equinoccial)
• a (SemiMayorAxis): 315 ±20 UA (Simulador orbital)
• i (inclination): 3,5 ±0.3 grados (12)
• e (eccentricity): 0.3 ±0.04 (13)
• AscendingNode: 359.0 (Calculada de las posiciones de G1.9+0.3)
Y ajustando dicho modelo en el simulador astronómico para obtener los restantes datos:
• ArgOfPericenter
• M (mean anomaly)
• Epoch
Podríamos decir que nos ha sorprendido, pero no sería cierto porque la verdad es que lo esperábamos.

Not sure what their saying their but it's got fancy numbers yup,, aha,, all purty and factual,, yup
But my Spanish is terrible
Spanish factoid
Spain was conqured by Hannable "the guy with the Elephants"