ELE 7/7/2011 Warning Video!!!

www.youtube.com...


hi guys a detailed video of some guy speaking on Planet X Brown Dwarf star. anyway he thinks the volcanos is a sign also the nucular stuff in the u.s he also states the warning sign is more volcanos going on and if the dams break its worth a look

14 minutes ,I only watched 14 seconds so may have missed some vital information but whats this ?
Planet X is to blame for Nuclear Incompetence?Tepco will be pleased to know they are off the hook

About 10mins in at the minute, I take it he is saying that you are going to have a nuclear disaster through a sun spot and HAARP on 7/7?
I don’t understand where he is making the connections.

Is any of this credible? I do find interesting that there has been no fly zones activated as I have seen this on another thread. Is this a normal occurrence or is it rare for there to be so many no fly zones?

Hope you all are ok over there I am really having trouble these days distinguishing real threats from fear mongering as what he is presenting is pretty extreme.

Peace

reply to post by tamenie


If you beleive anything about Planet x or nibiru, I have a bridge to Scotland to sell you, please pm me for details.

Before its too late!

reply to post by tamenie


Another one... hmmm.

I think it's gotten to the stage of ''the boy that cried wolf'' and that there have been so many claims and theories that have failed that when we are sctually told the truth about something real or a threat, we wont beleive it.

Here is the clip from the OP -

ELEnin dwarf star and related threats are beginning to escalate and my August 1, 2011 safety windows could collapse at any moment, which means you need to keep your finger on the pulse of conditions until the time to bugout and meet up with your survival groups at your safe zone locations.

Although i will add in regard to Elenin or a brown dwarf i have had thoughts about it and that if there were a brown dwarf getting closer then wouldnt that put a type of gravity stress on Earth, the gravity of our sun in one direction and then the smaller gravity of a brown dwarf in the other. That would account for tectonic actvity and abonormal weather patterns as we would very slightly be pulled further from the sun. It was a really cold summer in Australia this year, along with all the other crazy weather since the start of the year.

All that is a stretch and just some random thoughts i thought i would share, for the most part i remain highly skeptical of any real threat, but i may be wrong.

Just a person who still believes that elenin is a dark star and is basing all of his assumptions on that. Ive noticed that some will throw in different unrelated conspiracies and find some sort of correlation in order to try and convince others of an already unproven theory. When nothing happens im sure he will work hard to find more correlations and continue his hobby.

I couldnt help it ,and watched it all.
If you dont want to watch it ,I will sum it up with THIS
www.youtube.com...

Lost of knowledge about how all this will play out.

Any sources that could be considered credible...

...nope...

...I didn't think so


Seriously though....here is un-refutable evidence that smoking crack is bad.

Do amateur astronomers have any problem seeing Neptune?
How about Saturn or Jupiter?

As the answer to these questions is obviously “no”, then that in itself should tell you that this comet Elenin stuff is nonsense. If Elenin were in fact a Brown Dwarf Star they would have an easier time seeing it, at greater distance, then they have viewing other distant smaller objects. Heck, you would be able to see it with the naked eye by now, the same as you can see Jupiter and Saturn.

Also Haarp does not control the weather, and there are always various No-Fly Zones around US air space that can be checked by looking at the NOTAMS:
pilotweb.nas.faa.gov...

reply to post by defcon5


I am not saying i totally disagree with you and to be honest i am sick of hearing the names, elenin, Nibiru and planet x etc but i will say in regard to brown dwarfs -

Aren't they alot harder to see because the light is absorbed by them and not reflected or produced. Someone like Nasa can see them because they have other more advanced detecting devices (X-Ray,Radio, Infrared Etc) - something like WISE would have detected it.


So basically the are invisible to the naked eye - well not invisible but very hard to see unless you know it's there and exactly where to look.

Brown Dwarf Comparison


Stars with less mass than the sun are smaller and cooler, and hence much fainter in visible light. Brown dwarfs are the smallest and coolest of stars. They have less than eight percent of the mass of the sun, which is not enough to sustain the fusion reaction that keeps the sun hot. These cool orbs are nearly impossible to see in visible light, but stand out when viewed in infrared. Their diameters are about the same as Jupiter's, but they can have up to 80 times more mass and are thought to have planetary systems of their own.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf6ad1773085.jpg[/atsimg]

NASA - Brown Dwarf Comparison

Getting WISE About Nemesis(AstroBio)

reply to post by Havick007


Amateur astronomers would most likely see the effects of a brown dwarf star on other planets due to its mass and the gravitational effects of it. Even though it might not be as massive as an actual star its still massive and would affect them I believe.

reply to post by Havick007


Gliese 229B can be seen from earth with a 60 inch telescope.

It's 19 lightyears away.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I just edited that post with some proper info on Brown Dwarfs -

These cool orbs are nearly impossible to see in visible light, but stand out when viewed in infrared. Their diameters are about the same as Jupiter's, but they can have up to 80 times more mass and are thought to have planetary systems of their own

reply to post by topherman420


Some are only slightly bigger than Jupiter. Although i agree the gravitational effects would be obvious.

Don't get me wrong i am not advocating this theory, i was just sharing some info about Brown Dwarfs as the Mod seemed to compare seeing it through a telescope the same as viewing other planets etc.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Gliese 229 is a Red Dwarf Star... The letter B would correspond to one of it's planets. I was talking about Brown Dwarfs, it's a completly different type of star.


Come on CH you of all people should know that

Stop with the warning sign in the thread title. Stop scaring the people of ATS and stop scaring yourself. How long has this doom and gloom news been in this site? Until now we are all still alive and kicking. It is useless to scare yourself and the others. Living in fear is a waste of time and energy.

reply to post by Havick007


No, Gliese 229 is a red dwarf (star).

Gliese 229B is a brown dwarf (planet).

All brown dwarfs are planets.

reply to post by Chadwickus


It depends how you define it, it may be the size of a planet but technically it is a star. That doesnt have the mass to sustain fusion but then compare it to something like Jupiter, they can have to 80x more mass and be of similar size.

So it's not a star that has reached enough mass for fusion but still a star in terms of gravity, they can even have there own planets or if you want to call it a planet then they have their own satellites.

Either way it's not always the case and many Brown Dwarfs are very hard to detect with normal telescopes. As i said in a revious post i am not advocating this theory and remain very skeptical, i was just clearing up a comment the Mod made about being able to view it through a telescope just because we can see out planets through a telescope.

So yeah, some may be visible and some are not through a normal telescope.

Gliese 229B

Since methane can only exist at temperatures less than 1,200 K and the coolest stars have a surface temperature of 1,800 K, this is conclusive evidence that Gliese 229B is not a star. There remains, however, a possibility that it may be a very massive planet. The decisive factor is how GL 229B formed. If it condensed like a star from an interstellar cloud then it is certainly a brown dwarf. On the other hand, if it grew by accretion in a circumstellar disk, then some astronomers would argue that it is a large planet.

Source

reply to post by Chadwickus

All brown dwarfs are planets.

I dont want to argue the point so much because in general this is up for debate and it all depends on the size and mass of Brown Dwarf.

This is only a Wiki link but it covers it quite well -

Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects which are too low in mass to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, which is characteristic of stars on the main sequence. Brown dwarfs have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth. Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest-mass stars; this upper limit is between 75[1] and 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history. In any event, brown dwarfs heavier than 13 MJ do fuse deuterium and those above ~65 MJ also fuse lithium. Some planets are known to orbit brown dwarfs: 2M1207b, MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb, and 2MASS J044144‎b.

Wiki

reply to post by Havick007


The reason why they are using WISE is because they are looking for any cool objects that might elude detection via another source, they are NOT looking for Planet-X. If you want to know if you could visibly see a brown dwarf star with your naked eye, simply look up its magnitude. From Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy:

Brown Dwarfs
[Note added January 19, 2003: in this section, I originally mistakenly gave the brown dwarf a visual magnitude of 17, when in fact it's more like 25. This is a factor of about 1600 in brightness. I have made the correction in this section and fixed the math involved. While a factor of 1600 seems like a lot, it doesn't change my argument that if Planet X were a brown dwarf, it would be easily visible to the naked eye.]

A mature brown dwarf glows in infrared. It has a temperature of something like 1000 to 2500 degrees Celsius. An object that hot puts out very little visible light, but gives off more infrared. Not that they're all that bright: they are so faint that the first brown dwarf discovered, named Gliese 229b, eluded detection until 1995! It glows feebly at about magnitude 25 in visible light. That makes it roughly 1/40,000,000th the brightness of the faintest star visible to the unaided eye, and takes a fair sized telescope to see at all.

However (and this is a big however), Gliese 229b is a long way off: about 18 light years away, or roughly 200 trillion kilometers! If we go with Mr. Hazlewood's claim that Planet X is a brown dwarf, we can assume it is much like Gliese 229b. At a distance of even Pluto's orbit, Planet X would be a billion times brighter, glowing visibly at magnitude 2, making it a relatively bright star! Mind you, as I write this (July 2002) it must be significantly closer to us than Pluto, and proportionally brighter. It would be the third brightest object in the sky (only the Moon and Sun would be brighter). We don't see it, which leads me to the conclusion that it doesn't exist.

So inside the solar system, it would have a magnatude of 2 making it the third brightest object in our sky… Additionally, It would give off a magenta color light:

Brown Dwarf
Because of the absorption of sodium and potassium in the green part of the spectrum of T dwarfs, the actual appearance of T dwarfs to human visual perception is estimated to be not brown, but the color of magenta coal tar dye.