posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:44 PM
This may have been mentioned, I jumped a couple pages..... Shooting an object in space is nothing like shooting something on earth, in the sky or
underwater. When we send something to Mars for example, we don't aim directly at it. We send our "projectile" on an increasing orbit around the
sun so that it eventually follows a similar orbit to mars and then catches up to it. Similarly, if...and I use the word if loosely because the
motives behind shooting at an asteroid (instead of a rendezvous to study it for example) are in my opinion extreme fringe logic... But, lets say we
were to shoot at it. The path of this object is well known and quite accurate with plenty of lead time. The weapon used to shoot down this asteroid
would spend days, weeks...in earth orbit nudged into a trajectory that would bring it very close to a rendezvous path. If the projectile is big
enough that an amateur astronomer can see it, it stands to reason that the weapon... which must be quite a bit larger could be seen as well. So,
where is the weapon? Why is the projectile coming from an unlikely angle for an object whose path is well known? He'll, if we've got such
capabilities we could have parked our weapon right behind it, to the side, or out in front of it... What would the motive be vs. a logical motive such
as study? Maybe it was aliens? Sure, capable of interstellar travel but can't shoot down a rock that even we can map a path for. Not likely?
Planned de-population? Never. When and if depopulation begins it'll be from a group of people who are very deliberate and extremely intelligent
(unfortunately for us). The unpredictable outcome of nudging an asteroid into colliding with earth is a plan even an idiot would see is absurd. Add
to this we have no idea if this video is even real, and on the off chance that it is we have no idea of telling how close above or below this thing
is.... That's just my take on it anyway.