Elenin Has Not Survived Perihelion

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by SatoriTheory

 

Hundreds of Comets pass close to the Sun every year without "melting".

Halley's comet gets close to the sun at a distance of 0.586 AU every 75 years, and my word it hasn't "melted completely" throughout the history since it was discovered.

Why did Comet Elenin have to be the exception? Its surface area is MASSIVE the fact it is 4 km in diameter, and it was only 0.482 AU from the Sun - a large enough distance to escape the threat of "melting".

edit on 17-9-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .

Reminds me of Building 7

how pathetic and embarrassing it was to read the first several posts in this thread.

There's a small part of me that wants this to happen just to see the look on the debunkers' faces. The simple fact of the matter is that we won't know for certain whether this is an invisible brown dwarf, a spaceship, or nothing at all until the dates have passed. I'm going to reserve my opinion on Elenin until after November.

EDIT 9:30 am PST: I just realized I left out the "u" in the name, my bad.

The next doomsday comet will be Panstarrs as it will possibly be very bright.

It's not expected untill 2013 but I'm sure doomsdayers will come up with something
about leap years not being factored in or some crap. I guarantee we will be reading
posts about it in two years time.

Or...... Comet Elenin simply exhausted what was left of the material that made it's tail and is now an asteroid, black and cold, zipping it's way towards Earth to an impact point off the Russian-Alaskan coast where there is a big red "X" that marks the spot.

The tail is made up of the material of the comet. The tail isn't a fuel source you know, it doesn't "run out."

Unlike a meteor that is heavy metals, a comet is dirt and ice. Unless you are suggesting there is a super meteor hiding beneath the normal dirt an ice that makes up that comet.

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


The simple gravity equation validates the SCIENCE. It's hundreds of years old!, learn about real science.

Originally posted by SonicInfinity

There's a small part of me that wants this to happen just to see the look on the debunkers' faces. The simple fact of the matter is that we won't know for certain whether this is an invisible brown dwarf, a spaceship, or nothing at all until the dates have passed. I'm going to reserve my opinion on Elenin until after November.

Agreed.

The level of ridicule in this thread is shocking.

I don't want to see mass destruction on planet earth, but after trawling through this thread it would be nice to see Elenin light up again.

Originally posted by bjsmi2
Why dont we just wait !!
Lets just wait till the end of September...
All you "experts" out there for and against have NO conclusive evidence apart from your stupid limited information and guessing.
Lets see who's right or wrong before making big claims to fame. September 27 is not far off...
Earth is still experiencing odd behavior which nobody can explain dont forget...

Yeah, this is the only post I gave an star.

We have 2 sides presenting ZERO solid information to conclude the debate, A photo is a photo, no matter who took it. How many times we found NASA photoshopped pics?

So stupid labels justify a huge superiority complex. Everytime we talk about Elenin, Nibiru or religion. Why do I need to pick a side? I am not an "skeptic" or a "fear monger".

But the worst of all are the bunch of arrogants that inmediately support what the OP said, without contribution, just making stupid jokes that make them feel superior, you can recognize them because they always appear in the very first page and usually sign ther idiotic comment with a "lol"

I am getting sick of most of you.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


They are not 'debunkers', they are better students of science. The kind of science that can be validated, the real stuff, like what built 'The Bomb'.

It works!

reply to post by XplanetX


Why?

reply to post by SonicInfinity


I don't want this to happen!

That's my birthday!!!!

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by XplanetX

 

Why?

Why not?

reply to post by TheDon


There are many astronomers who have stated that Elenin has broken up for a number of reasons. The reason Matiazzo is quoted is because he's done the best job at following Elenin over the time period we're interested in. Furthermore, he provides a good presentation on his site. We could go to quote astronomers like Leonid Elenin and Robert McNaught who have not only made statements that confirm what we are seeing in Matiazzo's photos, but that recent data has also shown that Elenin is no longer producing water vapor, a big sign that it has broken up. I don't understand why people continue to argue that the comet hasn't broken up when all the evidence used to determine when other comets have broken up are present.

As for the videos you posted, it should be noted that in that first one, the object he's looking at couldn't possibly be Elenin. Why? Because with the time and location that they give Elenin would not have risen at that point. It would have still been below the horizon for another few hours. So, how does he have images of a comet that wasn't even in the sky at the time he claims?

That's quite enough of the off topic posts.

Please debate the actual evidence rather than devolving into chit chat.

Thank you

Thank you for the sequence of event pictures showing the break-up of Elenin. I was hoping to get to see the little guy but oh well. Maybe enough pieces will survive to at least give a good light show of some shooting stars if anything at all survived the break-up.

Great post though and I love how you itemized a good sample of the doomsday nonsense that has surrounded this former comet. Maybe it just got stage-fright from all the hype and had a nervous breakdown and fell to pieces

Originally posted by fleabit

Or...... Comet Elenin simply exhausted what was left of the material that made it's tail and is now an asteroid, black and cold, zipping it's way towards Earth to an impact point off the Russian-Alaskan coast where there is a big red "X" that marks the spot.

The tail is made up of the material of the comet. The tail isn't a fuel source you know, it doesn't "run out."

Unlike a meteor that is heavy metals, a comet is dirt and ice. Unless you are suggesting there is a super meteor hiding beneath the normal dirt an ice that makes up that comet.

Incorrect. Some Comets are chucks of rock, even metallic in nature and are covered in water ice from the beginnings of the solar system or picked up by passing through materials in space.

www.daviddarling.info...

With all due respect to Michael Mattaizo, there should not be that much of a change of star-topography from one picture to the next. From Aug 29 to Sep 1 is not a lengthy enough time for all those stars to be in an entirely different placement. These are of different positions of the sky or much larger time frames otherwise the heavenly bodies are moving too quickly to differentiate one object from the other.

Seriously, go from each picture one by one and try to match up the surrounding stars on those pictures. Everything out there is moving for certain but not that fast, not unless all of those bodies are within our Solar System and they are not.

I believe we are seeing nothing because we are not looking at anything!

reply to post by Xcalibur254


As I stated i did not say my source was correct and i was just providing information. If the information is correct or not I do not know, you provided a valid argument that it is incorrect, which might I add you did not provide any information or sources to backup your claim. Also what about the second video?


The OP only uses 1 source and I am well aware of Matiazzo’s work and I am not claiming this to be wrong, I am just asking for verifications to what he is claiming, which for some reason as I stated is being quoted all over the internet and here on ATS as fact and anyone one else that provides information that contradicts his findings is wrong (See OP) which I think is wrong.

Like you a could quote sources that say it is not broken up, but then we always seem to head right back to the OP source that is stated as fact.