It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where Are All The ELENIN Conspiracy Theorists Now?

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Does that sound plausible? They can detect an incoming missile but they cannot track a satellite, this is just complete nonsense and I can't understand why nobody has pulled them up on it. If they knew where it was in lower orbit then as it's temperature increased it would have been easy to detect..


Of course they can track a satellite, they just can't predict exactly how it will behave as it begins to interact with the atmosphere. What UARS tracker are you referring to, anyway? Could you provide a link?




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


My statistical analysis is more valid because I actually did one. The site you linked only had a graph. I saw no equations, F scores, p values, etc. I looked at both total number and based on magnitude. You also mention that USGS alters data, but your own source also uses USGS for their data, so if my analysis is wrong then so is theirs.

A CME cannot alter the orbit of 2005 YU55. It simply doesn't have the force to do so. It may cause some material to be blown off of the asteroid, but it wouldn't change its orbit. We can state with 100% certainty that 2005 YU55 will not present a threat to Earth for at least the next 100 years.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by mockrock
 


My statistical analysis is more valid because I actually did one. The site you linked only had a graph. I saw no equations, F scores, p values, etc. I looked at both total number and based on magnitude. You also mention that USGS alters data, but your own source also uses USGS for their data, so if my analysis is wrong then so is theirs.

A CME cannot alter the orbit of 2005 YU55. It simply doesn't have the force to do so. It may cause some material to be blown off of the asteroid, but it wouldn't change its orbit. We can state with 100% certainty that 2005 YU55 will not present a threat to Earth for at least the next 100 years.


Well that all really depends on what YU55 actually is.. It is the explanation for what we will see in the run up to the 9th November. But could it actually be an object that passes us further away, but be far more dangerous.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


It's an asteroid. That 2005 in its name refers to the year it was discovered. It has an orbital period of 1.22 years. This means that we have been able to observe it for multiple orbits and no one has ever seen anything other than an asteroid. Not to mention that nothing happened all the other times it reached perigree.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


There are several overlapping issues to consider.
1. More smaller quakes are detected
2. Larger quakes could have been misjudged as to intensity - look at changes in intensity posted today
3. More people live in more areas and report more quakes

It's not that you can't use quake data, but it is important to understand the limitations inherent in the quake data just as there are limitations to all data.


Someone who blogs about volcanoes is just as worth listening to as a politically motivated government body.

That is not true at all. Just because someone blogs does not mean they are saying anything reliable. A scientific body has many processes that keep the information reliable such as peer review, and multiple reporting stations. There are no such constraints on a blogger. The blogger can make whatever claims they want and represent anything they want. That does not make any of their claims true. I seriously doubt the censorship claim. It just has baloney written all over it.

Can anyone substantiate this claim?


What you are saying is the only data which can be trusted is that that you yourself have analysed.. Do you have peer reviewed papers? what makes you different and more qualified to interpret data. I can go through and do a qualitative study of all of your replies and I can't find a single occasion where you admit to ever being wrong.. are you the oracle ?

How odd that you say this about yourself. This is a response to mockrock.


To downplay YU55 is naive, every asteroid that comes close by should be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

To play up YU55 is deceitful. It is not naive to show that it misses us.

Your claim to anything is simply based on your personal paranoia. You have nothing to show but innuendo.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



A simple tracker designed to alert you if you could be that 1-3200 person not robust, no accurate tracking devise!
Does that sound plausible? They can detect an incoming missile but they cannot track a satellite, this is just complete nonsense and I can't understand why nobody has pulled them up on it. If they knew where it was in lower orbit then as it's temperature increased it would have been easy to detect..


1. During reentry a tracker goes offline due to the envelope of ionized gas around the object
2. A missile is a powered aerodynamic object with a predictable path.
3. A missile provides a trackable heat signature from list off onwards
4. A MRV is designed to circumvent the ability to track
5. An unheated, unpowered, tumbling satellite could be tracked, but its reentry point could not be determined.

Please learn why the 2 are very different.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
It's an asteroid.

It is an Apollo class asteroid, that is, one that crosses earth's path. It crosses earth's path on two occasions making a closest approach to earth every 11 years around the 18th April and then around 9th November for the following year.

For example, 18th April 2010 it made a close approach, it's next close approach is around 9th November 2011.
Previous to this, it's closest approaches where on/around 18th April 1999 and 9th November 2000.
Previous to that, it's closest approaches where on/around 18th April 1988 and 9th November 1989.
And so on.

Every 11 years, on the 9th November YU55 has been crossing earth's path, getting ever more closer.

Interesting numbers. Every 11 years. 9th November (9/11 - D/M).

You can see it, you just don't want to accept it.



That 2005 in its name refers to the year it was discovered.

The year it was 'publicly' discovered.

There are other systems out there that monitor the heavens for rogue objects, those systems being Goldstone, Deep Space Radar Network, Spacewatch, Spaceguard, et all. I am sure the military have powerful watch systems also. Then there will also be similar systems in other countries around the world.

So just because it received a 'public' discovery does not mean it was not being monitored/tracked previously.

JPL's YU55 Orbit Diagram

st.
edit on 4-10-2011 by SatoriTheory because: Added link to orbit diagram



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The more important asteroid searches have been left out of the list such as LINEAR, NEOWISE, PAN-Starrs, LONEOS, NEAT.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


So you are saying a satellite entering earth is 'unheated' then what is the process that makes it 'burn up'

You believe there is no technology that can track an object(s) at anything from 2000 F to 5000 F? In a background temperature of around -80 ? Do not over complicate a simple question.. bring in irrelevant information to distract.

A rocket combustion engine runs at up to 5800 °F (3227 °C) so if we can pinpoint a missile.. you can pinpoint the debris of a satellite.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


UARS was a cover. ON the same day a meteor hit Argentina killing one person and injuring 9 others.. We are meant to fabricate a conspiracy from this that perhaps it was UARS that hit.

When whatever is coming on November the 8/9th arrives people will be told it is ROSSAT satellite breaking up in the atmosphere.. we will have the same mystery over where it will land.. and this is why.

They can pinpoint where a satellite will land, it's a long time since MIR crashed and they did a good job.. they can track the super-heated parts until they cool to the surrounding temperature of the air or hits the sea.. But they want to create an aurora of mystery around it so, when people all over the world see meteors, panic is more measured.. I thought it was going to land in Australia.. ? How come we had bits in the US? China?

Either (or both) we are going to be hit by a shower of meteors, or a larger object for which YU55 is the cover story will make it's closest approach on the 8/9th



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


I would recommend listening to this interview, sorry no distracting CGI graphics on it.

youtu.be...
edit on 5-10-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)


Don't agree with all of it but some really interesting points.

This is also an interesting www.youtube.com...
edit on 5-10-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



So you are saying a satellite entering earth is 'unheated' then what is the process that makes it 'burn up'

You believe there is no technology that can track an object(s) at anything from 2000 F to 5000 F? In a background temperature of around -80 ? Do not over complicate a simple question.. bring in irrelevant information to distract.

A rocket combustion engine runs at up to 5800 °F (3227 °C) so if we can pinpoint a missile.. you can pinpoint the debris of a satellite.

The issue is whether or not an object can be tracked. You are wondering why a satellite that is not under control does not an easy to predict reentry. You are the one that suggested that a missile can be tracked. I provided a number of suggestions that differentiate a missile path from an out of control satellite path.

You also provide statements that show that the 2 are very different.

What you don't consider is that the missile remains intact and the satellite begins to shred and is strewn over a potentially large area.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



UARS was a cover. ON the same day a meteor hit Argentina killing one person and injuring 9 others.. We are meant to fabricate a conspiracy from this that perhaps it was UARS that hit.

Can you provide any evidence for this claim? I looked and no one has found anything from space such as part of a a satellite or a meteorite.

The Argentina incident was 2 days AFTER the satellite fell to Earth. Try to get the basics right.

Here is an article which reports that parts of a gas fired pizza oven were found in the house. They also report and show a photo from a hoaxer.
www.gizmodo.com.au...


They can pinpoint where a satellite will land, it's a long time since MIR crashed and they did a good job.. they can track the super-heated parts until they cool to the surrounding temperature of the air or hits the sea.. But they want to create an aurora of mystery around it so, when people all over the world see meteors, panic is more measured.. I thought it was going to land in Australia.. ? How come we had bits in the US? China?

Did they get MIR right? Show me a source. Other than this claim you post your own unsubstantiated claims.

So if we look at MIR and its reentry we learn that MIR was under control and was purposely brought to a lower orbit by purposeful rocket burns.

So please don't misrepresent a controlled reentry with the reentry of a satellite which is not under control.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The Argentina incident was 2 days AFTER the satellite fell to Earth. Try to get the basics right.


I am suggesting they knew we might be hitting some debris/meteorite.. .. They used the UARS story to take away attention from meteorites/comet fragments entering our skies.. So we loose interest. Heightened public awareness proceeds the event.. But by the time the actual event happens we are bored. Slight of hand..


Here is an article which reports that parts of a gas fired pizza oven were found in the house. They also report and show a photo from a hoaxer.
www.gizmodo.com.au...


Yes but there is also this..

inexplicata.blogspot.com...

- I am saying it is difficult to tell, no reason to doubt witnesses as I can't see a motivation for it.. The 'hoaxer' who took the picture of it could have been trying to cash in.. There are hundreds of gas explosions around the world every day, but we don't hear about blue lights from the sky.. It could just have been gas explosion.








posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Please format your posts in the future to show quotes and where they came from. You appear to have violated copyright issues by posting an entire blog here without credit.

The article you seem to be quoting discusses a hoax image. There is nothing there but conjecture. One of the missing tales is that a UFO fired on the neighborhood.

There is no impactor. To destroy a house would have required a piece much larger than 12kg. Where is it? Where is the impact crater?

Reports of any such incident are filled with all sorts of speculation. Now that a few days have gone by where are the articles showing the cause?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Big deal copyright of a blog.. in the context of what we are arguing about.. and what we both know is around the corner, not exactly a priority!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


So you think you can justify breaking the law or were you trying to cover up the source knowing that it was a blog?

Sounds more like you are involved in a cover up - a disinformation campaign.

There is only anecdotal evidence for something from the sky being involved in the incident. The lack of a crater and impactor certainly suggest there was nothing raining down from the sky. If there were a large meteorite to collect then people would since collectors pay big bucks for them.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.


That comes directly from the ATS T&C. You agreed to it when you joined here.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join