It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Violater1
Nope, don't like it. Not one bit
34,257,942 km divided by 1.609344 equals 21,286,898.264 miles. That's even worse... a 21.3 million mile change.
reply to post by CLPrime
That is a huge difference when you put it in kilometers like that. But, that's just 0.229 AU - a 49.46% change. That's a perfectly reasonable change in orbital calculations for a comet that had only been observed for 3 months as of March.
Originally posted by captiva
Ive been following the Elenin threads and so many people are just so sure that there is no need for concern. Those same people quote reference to Nasa and many other sources when they argue their point. Now we are starting to see errors in that very same information that is used to push the " nothing to see here" side of the argument and what do we get with it?...ah, just ignore that, they tweaked it a bit, that diagram is wrong and it still wont cause any damage.
Seems to me when the evidence suits its infallable , when it dosnt suit its " Just ignore that"
Originally posted by Illustronic
The images in trueperspective’s OP post show severe artifacts when exposure was adjusted. The image SatoriTheory's post shows no such artifacts, even with the exposure curved to a higher degree.
The images in Violater1’s post also show no artifacts, with greater adjustment.
What does this say? Well, if you want to start talking image processing Violater1’s images were gif files, the most compressed files on the web, SatoriTheory's image is a png file, and trueperspective’s were jpegs.
I can post the adjustments I made to show you with the settings used so you can see. I’m not calling trueperspective a purposeful deception, maybe his source is. It’s two against one so far.
Also creation dates would be helpful, the longer data is collected the more accurate one can use it for trajectory calculations, that’s why things change.
Originally posted by trueperspective
Hey so first take a look at these. Notice the dates, both Oct. 17, 2011 and the position of Elenin. As you can see it is the same viewpoint and zoom.
Originally posted by megabytz
Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by trueperspective
Interesting, but was the first one dated 2010? Why did you cut the year in the photo?
No one should make fun of you as ghost said, at least no reasonable mature person should.
Comet Elenin wasn't discovered in October of 2010.
Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
Originally posted by Backslider
How can these results be from the same day when the last Elenin observation was 8/02?
I thought they just found it last December 10?
Originally posted by violet
I have no thoughts because I'm not an expert.
But I'm sure others like me - who have no clue, will S& F your threadedit on 11-8-2011 by violet because: (no reason given)edit on 11-8-2011 by violet because: (no reason given)