Could Elenin be a Asteroid supporting life?

Fristly: Welcome ATS Users, construtive ones and debunkers,especially the ones who insult people, i would like intelligent input but yousually when i ask this i usually get nothing but insults,but here goes: In my recent post i talked about how Elenin was hinted to be some sort of link to extraterestrials, i was reading up on VG1991 and came accross this brief abstract:

A 10-metre object on a heliocentric orbit, now catalogued as 1991 VG, made a close approach to the Earth in 1991 December, and was discovered a month before perigee with the Spacewatch telescope at Kitt Peak. Its very Earth-like orbit and observations of rapid brightness fluctuations argued for it being an artificial body rather than an asteroid. None of the handful of man-made rocket bodies left in heliocentric orbits during the space age have purely gravitational orbits returning to the Earth at that time. In addition, the small perigee distance observed might be interpreted as an indicator of a controlled rather than a random encounter with the Earth, and thus it might be argued that 1991 VG is a candidate as an alien probe observed in the vicinity of our planet.

In this link there is a discussion about 3 potential things the asteroid could be:

A Man made spacecraft
A natural bodie
A alien artifact

here is the link: VG 1991 artical

There are many reports that elenin either split in 2, changed course or had a slight variation in its path, and then theres the rest of the rumores about mecurey exploding and that is apparently a contributing factor to Elenins change of course. Now for the next point: Elenin is apparently emitting a signal as we have all heard but also there is this description of a E-class asteroid from user misfitofscience discussing this artical and the user quoted almost what i quoted in my thread but verry similar E class asteroids are flat im shape, are very rare, and have the ability to hold water and absorb materials. Sounds almost like an aircraft. They are basically Enstatite (which is similar to all that talk about (44) Nysa years ago...Now Enstatite is made of Magnesium and is one of the few silicate minerals that have been observed in crystalline form outside our Solar System, particularly around evolved stars and Planetary Nebulae such as NGC 6302. Enstatite is thought to be one of the early stages for the formation of crystalline silicates in space and many correlations have been noted between the occurrence of the mineral and the structure of the object around which it has been observed.: US NAVY insider and Elenin

I am thinking there is a link between VG1991 and Elenin but i could be wrong, its really srating to look like Elenin just might be some sort of ship that was once a asteroid and the closer it gets we could be closer to a visitation, not invasion,visitation! i look forward to any positive or constructive input.

I am thinking there is a link between VG1991 and Elenin but i could be wrong, its really srating to look like Elenin just might be some sort of ship that was once a asteroid and the closer it gets we could be closer to a visitation, not invasion,visitation! i look forward to any positive or constructive input.

Im sorry if this annoys you, But There is absolutely no evidence to suggest elenin is anything more than a comet 'a small disintegrating one'. Offer some real evidence to back up your claims and i will consider them.

Originally posted by Atzil321

I am thinking there is a link between VG1991 and Elenin but i could be wrong, its really srating to look like Elenin just might be some sort of ship that was once a asteroid and the closer it gets we could be closer to a visitation, not invasion,visitation! i look forward to any positive or constructive input.

Im sorry if this annoys you, But There is absolutely no evidence to suggest elenin is anything more than a comet 'a small disintegrating one'. Offer some real evidence to back up your claims and i will consider them.

Yeah? And what are the evidences that Elenin is a Comet? I do not see any. Ops, yes NASA, but I do not trust NASA and even they admit it is a strange one. And you should educate yourself too a little bit before posting as Elenin is not disintegrating at all so you do not write nonsenses!

reply to post by nedined

Yeah? And what are the evidences that Elenin is a Comet?

How about the thousands of amateur and professional astronomer observations?

I do not see any

What an ignorant statement, just because you are too lazy to find the information, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Ops, yes NASA, but I do not trust NASA and even they admit it is a strange one

Where have they admitted "it is a strange one"?

It's an insignificant comet that has only garnered attention because of all the ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been thrown at it

And you should educate yourself too a little bit before posting as Elenin is not disintegrating at all so you do not write nonsenses!

Well if it's not disintegrating, perhaps you can explain why the comet has faded considerably the last few weeks?

August 19:


August 27:


September 6:


members.westnet.com.au...

Of course theres life there... wherre to you think mother-in-laws go after they die?????

reply to post by nedined

Now all bets are off. Within the past week the comet's brightness has declined by 50%, dropping a half magnitude between August 19th and 20th, according to Australian observer Michael Mattiazzo. (The comet's current location in western Virgo makes it virtually unobservable from northern latitudes. Worse, images show Comet Elenin's bright core becoming elongated and diffuse — the telltale signs that its icy nucleus has either broken in two or disintegrated altogether.

Source: www.skyandtelescope.com...
Rather than give you proof Elenin is just a comet, I challenge you to show me proof it is not

And you should educate yourself too a little bit before posting as Elenin is not disintegrating at all so you do not write nonsenses!



Well if it's not disintegrating, perhaps you can explain why the comet has faded considerably the last few weeks?

Well that's easy, BECAUSE IS NOT A COMET!!!

As a comet, which is made mostly of ice and dirt, approaches a sun, it's not uncommon for it to break up (due to gravity, etc). If this was a rare or unheard of phenomena, I suppose some speculation would make sense. But I don't know why you would assume a comet that is probably breaking up is not a comet.

It has done nothing so far that would make anyone think it is anything but what we think it is. I.E. a comet.

i dont care if its real or not, all this elenin stuff makes for a good read personly i hope its aliens would be fun me thinks

Mercury exploded ..... really? nobody noticed nobody blogged nobody posted you tube -- come on a planet explodes and it is a rumor.

Perhaps it was a Mercury exploded -- on the parkway.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Firstly! chadwickus thank you! haha, and secondly i didnt say it was a COMMET! its rumored by NASA its a commet! im so sick of these users wh come on here and say bs, fake, not true, educate your self, i am a verry well educated woman thsank you, i spend hours researching this stuff, i bet you didnt? i bet you just read a couple of threads that said its BS and now your on here saying no and im basically an idiot? come one serriosley! and as chadwickus said your probebly to lazy to find out your self! i bet you dont even know about VG1991? "by the way this is only directed at the users who say im either uneducated or its BS"! get off your rear and actually find out for your self rather them putting me down for my efforts! read the pages i have supplied and get back to me when YOU educate your self! have you missed the part where its apparently emitting frequencies? have you missed the artical on VG1991? have you missed the properties of what Elenin might actually be? have you read the artical on the US NAVAL SPACE COMMAND insiders info? and dont shout fake because you dont think the guy who wrote it Mister S if i remember correctly is a liar, prove him wrong! PROVE me wrong and every other Amature astronimer, HAM radio opperator and researcher! Where is your effort and research to say it is fake? not split in 2 and so forth, oh wait, let me guess, your listening to what debunkers and NASA say, well NASA are liars! there not even at the forfront of whats going on up in space, there a joke, there for little kids and adults who are easily fooled and go with the heard! come on , there are liars and there are people with concience out there! its just finding out whos real and whos fake.

reply to post by Tahnya86


If you are going to make a statement that you are well educated, then at least avoid all of the egregious spelling mistakes. Frankly, your writing suggests otherwise.

So you posted a quote from a write up by Dr Duncan Steel. Here is a correspondence concerning his write up.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Your proof is to the contrary and is in fact a rabbit hole. The Author’s premise, which you supplied in the link provided, clearly states the assumption is that the reasonable chance of discovering an object is 10 -5! To put that in probability terms, that’s a 1:100,000 chance of discovery (see note 1). Then to add more subterfuge, the author goes into some wildly conjectured card game! Given statistical probability, trying to associate a random draw from a deck that holds 52 cards can only be 52 2 or 1:2704 odds. To manipulate the numbers any other way is absurd! You don’t need to be a mathematician or statistician to realize that a chance of 1:100,000 is significantly higher than 1:2704! Regardless of whether an object is of alien, man-made, or natural origin; the Author admits that SpaceWatch can only locate an object 1:100,000 times.

Any other variance is pure conjecture and is not germane to the argument!! So in other words, it doesn’t matter the origin of the object, they can only locate the object 1:100,000 times! While I would agree that the OP has a number of grammatical errors and needs to look at using Spell Check;
I would present that you need to look at the information being provided in your rebuttal and don’t let the Author of said "evidence" take you down a road that is not supported by facts!

reply to post by stereologist


some of the smartest geniuses and iventors in time have had weak areas, mine is spelling, doesnt make me dumb....

reply to post by maddog3n


The paper begins by pointing out that Steel has made errors in understanding probability. You have as well.

Steel is the person that supplies the 10e-5 value. Furthermore, Weiler argues that this value is not relevant to the issue at hand.

There is also the assumption that all objects are likely to detected with equal probability. This is an assumption used to make the mathematics simpler. There is no subterfuge using an example of a card game. They are mathematically equivalent situations. Not sure where you are getting the idea that the deck has 52 cards. You might want to reread the article and learn where you went astray.Not sure why you are squaring anything since this is a single selection.

Your later discussions of comparing different numbers is the result of earlier misunderstandings.

Please go back to the rebuttal and figure out where you went astray.

reply to post by Tahnya86


You made a statement about yourself in an effort to make an appeal to authority. Your posts suggest otherwise. The stunning number of misspelled and incorrectly used words suggests otherwise.

A lot of people claim they spend much time researching. Is that really true? I ran a test in another thread in which I made a statement that I knew was false. I provided links showing I was wrong and no one, not a single person made even a cursory check of the links I provided. I asked another person on the thread to also drop hints for this test. They provided links that showed me wrong.

Everyone claimed they did incredible amounts of research and no one appeared to be telling the truth. The issue was over flood frequency. I stated in the thread that floods were not becoming more common and then supplied links to places that made it very clear that floods were becoming more common due to human alterations of the landscape.

In a recent post maddog3n made a simple error in reading the link I provided. He'll figure out what he did wrong. Can you provided a response to this link?

reply to post by stereologist


Stereo

What do YOU think 1991 vg could be?

highly reflective, but natural? undocumented space junk?..................................other?

reply to post by Tahnya86

Fristly: Welcome ATS Users, construtive ones and debunkers,especially the ones who insult people, i would like intelligent input but yousually when i ask this i usually get nothing but insults,but here goes

You would probably get a warmer welcome if you did not start out by insulting your audience.

There are many reports that elenin either split in 2, changed course or had a slight variation in its path, and then theres the rest of the rumores about mecurey exploding and that is apparently a contributing factor to Elenins change of course.

Mercury exploding is a new one. The comet has not changed course.

Elenin is apparently emitting a signal as we have all heard

No, it isn't. Starviewer Team has a long history of hoaxes.

E class asteroids are flat im shape, are very rare, and have the ability to hold water and absorb materials. Sounds almost like an aircraft.

It sounds even more like a kitchen sponge. Comet C/2010X-1 is not an "E Class asteroid." That was a bit of jargon a hoaxer used to give his ridiculous space patrol threads a bit of color. You are basing your speculation on a series of known hoaxes.

That said, I wish to thank you for bringing asteroid 1991 VG to my attention. It is a very intriguing body. It's inclination to the ecliptic is negligible, its eccentricity small and its period very close to Earth's. This does suggest that it is artificial, with a terrestrial origin. Using the not necessarily reliable JPL small planet browser visualization tool, it would seem that prior to 1991, the closest encounter between this body and Earth was in mid-1967:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acad2baf2c6a.jpg[/atsimg]

There were several probes launched to Venus in that year:

Venera 4 - 12 June 1967 - Venus Probe
Mariner 5 - 14 June 1967 - Venus Flyby
Cosmos 167 - 17 June 1967 - Attempted Venus Probe

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I find it difficult to believe that either a tiny Agena or an SS-6 upper stage would be visible, but it is easier to believe than the "Bluecoat Saga."

reply to post by stereologist

@stereologist
I have reread your earlier post and your latest posts to Tahnya86 and myself, to see if I may have missed something. The simple reason is that as unlike you, I know that I am fallible, because I am human. I then reread the evidence that you presented to refute Tahnya86 comments. The only logical answers for your latest rebuttal to me are:

1) You don’t understand the paper
2) You are purposefully being obtuse

I am going with option 2 as my choice. This option was chosen and sets the tone of this post due to: your patronizing tone, putting words in my mouth, and the fact that you have no substantive reasoning in any of your comments.

So please, by all means, explain to us stupid people:

How can one determine whether or not an object is man-made, natural, or of alien origin if you can’t find the object first? Weiler admits this point by default as he gives no other contravening evidence; he just states that it is “irrelevant”. I beg to differ from his viewpoint. I would submit that any rationale human being knows that logically you have to find an object before it can be identified. Regardless of the methodology, whether using; a telescope, a satellite, ESP, or hyper-dimensional powers that only he and Richard Hoagland are aware of; he still has to find it before it can be identify it. Therefore, it is relevant to include in the equation. In point of fact, he refutes his own assertion by stating: “…while finding an object in T-orbit is difficult, succeeding only about once in 100,000 trials…” Which then raises the question, “if it was “irrelevant”, why bring it up again?”. I am sure you believe that you are smarter than Weiler and maybe you are; perhaps you can explain mathematically why the probability of discovery is “irrelevant”? I am really looking forward to reading that little gem!

Please explain why then Weiler and the other three couldn’t come to a conclusion hence his admittance of why he wrote the paper. I would present that one motive for why he is manipulating the data using nonsensical analogies is that no one else would agree with him! Further, he makes a feeble attempt at using null hypothesis testing by using two “Assumptions” to add legitimacy to his argument. However, those assumptions are not weighted equally, are really a comparison, and therefore in no way come close to the null hypothesis testing standard.

Which leads us to my analogy and my inability to understand probability: please explain how if there are only 52 cards in a deck and each of those 52 cards is marked differently; that the odds at any one give time of drawing one specific card, say the 3 spades, are not 52 x 52 or 52 squared or 1:2704? You are aware that every time you draw card that you reset the deck from the last sample, right? Further, last time I checked, the use of “n” meant that I can insert any whole number. I chose 52 because most people know that there are 52 different cards in a deck of playing cards. Maybe you were thinking of an UNO deck? Not sure?

I was going to go on and on but I think I’ve hit the salient points. BTW…if you don’t want me talking to like this then remember that respect goes both ways! In my first post, I was civil to you and gave you the benefit of the doubt i.e. that you simply saw a rebuttal to the Dr. Steel reference in Tahnya86’s post, didn’t analyze it, and posted it as a source of fact. Don’t presume that can put words in my mouth and get away with it. Further, if you are going to argue, stick with disproving the facts presented instead of the patronizing tone and the “prove a negative” approach.

reply to post by maddog3n

I am going with option 2 as my choice. This option was chosen and sets the tone of this post due to: your patronizing tone, putting words in my mouth, and the fact that you have no substantive reasoning in any of your comments.

You are planning to be patronizing because you know that you are wrong.

How can one determine whether or not an object is man-made, natural, or of alien origin if you can’t find the object first? Weiler admits this point by default as he gives no other contravening evidence; he just states that it is “irrelevant”.

The issue is that the odds of finding the object are irrelevant with respect to the nature of the object. Whether or not the object is man-made, natural, or alien has nothing to do with how hard it is to find.

I beg to differ from his viewpoint. I would submit that any rationale human being knows that logically you have to find an object before it can be identified. Regardless of the methodology, whether using; a telescope, a satellite, ESP, or hyper-dimensional powers that only he and Richard Hoagland are aware of; he still has to find it before it can be identify it. Therefore, it is relevant to include in the equation.

An earthbound example is the finding of diamonds in placer deposits formed at the end of the last glacial age in North America. A few dozen diamonds have been found. Despite the fact that this is very rare it has no bearing on the fact that these are diamonds or not.

The composition or origin of an object is independent of the difficulty in finding it.

Another way to look at this is to place a needle in a haystack. The needle is man-made. If the haystack is the size of a bale of hay, then discovery is much easier than if the haystack is the size of a barn. Regardless of how easy or difficult it is to find the needle, the needle is still man-made.

Please explain why then Weiler and the other three couldn’t come to a conclusion hence his admittance of why he wrote the paper. I would present that one motive for why he is manipulating the data using nonsensical analogies is that no one else would agree with him! Further, he makes a feeble attempt at using null hypothesis testing by using two “Assumptions” to add legitimacy to his argument. However, those assumptions are not weighted equally, are really a comparison, and therefore in no way come close to the null hypothesis testing standard.

Here you misunderstand this issue. This is not an experiment. There is no null hypothesis. This is labeled a correspondence. It is a "letter to the editor." It points out Weiler's concern it you will, that there are logical errors in the claims made by Steel.

Which leads us to my analogy and my inability to understand probability: please explain how if there are only 52 cards in a deck and each of those 52 cards is marked differently; that the odds at any one give time of drawing one specific card, say the 3 spades, are not 52 x 52 or 52 squared or 1:2704?

Nowhere does Weiler suppose that this is a deck of 52 playing cards. That is your mistake.

To pick a particular card from a deck of 52 is just 1/52. To do that twice in a row with replacement is 1/2704.

Weiler such cards of 3 types and that there are a large number of cards, 1 for each object in space. The number of cards of each type is given in his paper as N(*).

I was going to go on and on but I think I’ve hit the salient points. BTW…if you don’t want me talking to like this then remember that respect goes both ways! In my first post, I was civil to you and gave you the benefit of the doubt i.e. that you simply saw a rebuttal to the Dr. Steel reference in Tahnya86’s post, didn’t analyze it, and posted it as a source of fact.

I couldn't care less how poorly you present yourself. The rebuttal contains facts. It reveals 2 logical fallacies Steel made. Those are facts.