Rethinking Comets

Rethinking Comets 1
We are told that there are billions of comets in the solar system and those that dip down for us to see are divided into two general groups, the short-period and the long-period comets. As of June 2008, the International Astronomical Union’s Minor Planet Center/Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams has identified and classified a total of 3708 comet apparitions. Bear in mind by the use of the word “apparitions,” that means that many comets of the short-period members have observed and counted at repeated returns. The actual, official number of individual comets ever classified since records were kept is a mere 2644 comets as of June 2008. --Now, that you have gotten a bit of a shock with those genuine figures, let’s back up and take a leisurely look at the whole comet situation.

ATS readers can calmly take in contrary opinions to conventional scientific thinking about all manners of things. For example, a certain group is strongly pushing for an electrical powered universe theory , even claiming too that comets are electrically powered but wholly natural objects. I’m sure many people watch their videos, read their threads and give a non-emotional shrug to what they take in. These people go away with a fairly ease of mind thinking that theory is true or maybe not maybe has some merits or maybe not. I would ask that you do the same with these words. Be wary, maintain an air of detachment when claims arise herein that comet bodies are natural bodies but intelligently operated. The formerly open and curious mind may clam up, immediately closed, as automatic mental doors slam shut. For some reason, thinking about, not even accepting the concept that the idea that ET from all over the galaxy are visiting us is unacceptable to most human minds. At that point, the mind stops being receptive and moves into a defensive mode. Quiet curiosity goes by the board and a mild anger erupts within the reader as onboard systems unconsciously feel assaulted and insulted. Thoughtful interest flags or evaporates completely in a flash as cognitive dissidence takes over and flatly doesn’t allow one to have honest thoughts on the topic. So be it if that is your response.
The decent information we get on ATS about comets is via the release of that data from the scientific community both in and out of governments in the US and abroad. In the normal course of our lives, we accept broad streams of such derived data from these sources without question. With the subject of comets, the study of which is virtually closed to all of the public, we have an area where the dictates of Science/government are the only voices we hear. Normally, we take such information as honest and true if for no other reason than Science/government continually preaches to us about its wisdom in all matters. And we are little effected by it. But trust in such systems has allowed the public to be ill-served by the givers/withholders of that data without the public being the wiser. With reason, we can question that possibility of being mislead about the nature of comets and wonder if whole concepts, theories and situations that we have been fed are nothing more than efforts to deceive and to hide a larger secret.
After all, the public has suffered through over a half of a century with Science/government telling us that it is absurd to believe that UFOs are visiting alien craft when evidence abounds to the contrary. If UFOs are not truthfully recognized for what they give every appearance of being, very foreign technology, why not comets, especially since there likely is a relationship?
Basically, Science itself is caught in its own self-delusion. That problem started long ago as a natural consequence of how creation was viewed: there was God and Man and nothing else intelligent in the Universe. Remnants of that myopic view continue today poisoning Science to its core. Summed up, it says, “If man didn’t make it or do it, it is simply the work of nature (or God).” If the observed process or object didn’t conform to expectations, than it was a fluke in the data, prone to being physically discarded or ignored for not fitting expectations. Sometimes at long last it is realized that the original theory was wrong.
Science has aptly applied that rule of avoiding the facts of comets with a vengeance. It takes and rejects various aspects of its own revelations about comets to create a picture that better fits a narrow, cosmology that is solidly anchored from an earthly, solidly anthropocentric-point of view. Or at least, that’s the way Science used to be before the coming of the saucers and before they ran into revelations on Mars and Phobos that gave them pause to reflect and seriously start talking in cautious, stilted terms about life out there somewhere but certainly not on Mars, and with the visiting UFOs but, yet, maybe, just maybe, out there somewhere. But the tide is changing as it must change from their own efforts of trial and error and learning, which of course, is not purely coincidental. Recently, they’ve given more credence to the theory that there are billions of earth-like planets within our galaxy. An astounding statement when you have been on this world as long as I have. Now, the Drake equation has been refashioned in a more realistic from the original where it was vilified! The new equation hinges on new types of searches for earth-like planets and offers probabilities that a couple of habitable planets will turn up within the next ten years.
Nonetheless, secrets must be kept if considered too strong for the public to outright. (Again, I refer to the UFO dilemma.) We went through that exact situation at least twice in the near past. When pulsars and quasars were independently first discovered by radio telescope, it was suspected that they may be signals from ET civilizations. Both sets of signals were kept secret for several months as the word was spread around astronomers to do further checks. Eventually, within a few months in both cases, it was decided all around that both types of signals were of a new type, not previously recorded or even envisioned. To this day, that is the official position on those phenomena despite the possibility that they still could be—perhaps fully known to some agencies--from some super civilizations such as envisioned by Kardashev on his chart of the various stages of technologically advanced civilizations.

The threads which appear on ATS about comets are usually rather innocuous in themselves and unimportant and unlikely to cause any drastic shift in how comets should be viewed because the hard data (released) reveals little out of the expected norm for comets. Any threads that suggest something outlandish about comets are assailed without end and usually rightly so.
The view of Science always has been that all comets are natural, dead objects. That they display unique and puzzling attributes and exhibit a few drastic quirks at times, can be conveniently ignored because the principle theory demands it. That blanket dismissal tactic preserves the on-going conventional, dogmatic wisdom about the phenomena. Not surprisingly, some scientists will admit that comets remain even more of a mystery today than they ever were.

Rethinking Comets 2
Now, about those things called comets that I call cometships. There is no argument here that all comets are not natural bodies. They are basically that just as Phobos at Mars is a captured asteroid but also was/is a habitat and may have been a cometship in the distant past. Comets are natural bodies to the extent that they are asteroids from this solar system and others. As asteroids, they do not emit comas. Any coma we see is a manufactured solar shield produced by materials upon and within a comet’s body to protect itself from super intense solar radiation even at close range. Some of the material in a coma may be Earth’s water.

That process of creating an artificial atmosphere is a proven concept. It works excellently for us. Some comets get closer to the sun that our position so their shields are made more dense and maintained as such during their close passage. A coma also provides some protection from various harmful rays and particles in deep space in addition to the natural bulk of the body.

There are two basic types of comets that Science recognizes. These are the short-period comets and the long-period comets. The distinction between the two is not definite, but the short-period members range in orbital periods around the sun from a year or so (much like the Earth), out to about 200 years. Comet Halley has an orbit of about 75 years and, thus, it rates as a short-period member if of a long duration in that classification. (Its mystery will be discussed in another thread.) Currently, there are several hundred short-period comets known. For the most part, they all have variously shaped elliptical orbits that extend almost to the orbit of Jupiter. They have the peculiar habit of seemingly appearing from nowhere in stable orbits and disappearing just as quickly. However, some are very long lived. Science likes to believe that these members always have been in or remain in the observed orbits but that the coma material has either started or extinguished to reveal or hide them. Otherwise, they have no explanation for how the orbits happen, or indeed, even where they come from. They merely seem to just appear. Some have been observed to change orbits. Perhaps these bodies are native to our solar system and carry the remnants of a Martian race as the artificiality of Phobos’ grooves and orbit strongly suggest. They will not be discuss further here except to note that as a rule they stay confined to what can be called the “creature zone” of the sun’s influence.

Science has invented the concept of the Oort cloud and other mechanisms to explain the appearances of all comets. It had no choice. As a result, we are told to expect billions of comets very slowly milling around out there at the outer edge of our solar system far beyond the last planet almost a light-year away. The bodies we eventually see as they dip inward are somehow dislodged (another concept alleges) by a “passing star” or some other gravitational force that cancels their relatively stable orbits and sends them falling toward the sun. While billions are claimed to exist, only a handful do we ever see. The “billions” number is only a guess.

The long-period comets are assumed to be those that are appearing for the first time into the inner system, or having returned from an earlier time many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousand years before. The incoming Comet Isom is a new, long-period comet member. These comets move in extreme motions that more resemble an extremely elongated toothpick shape rather than a conventional elliptical orbit allowed by natural physics. Actually, the entire motion exactly resembles the virtually endless parallel rails of a train track except for a fraction of a percent of during their turn-around points at each end. They have the habit of returning exactly back into space, parallel with their incoming path, toward the point from which they originated. That is to say, they lay down one side of their track as they come in and after making the huge sweeping curve we witness and move away from the areas of the planets, they retrace their string-straight route back to where they came from. Many of those also have the curious penchant of having their closest approach to the sun within our area of orbit, but they never come too close to us. Not surprisingly, our area, also known as the “habitual zone,” is the area we search around distant stars when looking for earth-like planets.

A relatively small number of these comets also bend if not violate another aspect of what we would expect of the laws of physic and random chance on natural bodies. This takes place when they approach the sun and move within the outer reaches of its corona. Due to the safety of the developed coma, they round the sun unscathed and return back the way they came in. It is unlikely that natural bodies would naturally fall into such a perfect combinations of the exactly required elements necessary for such motions time after time. We can’t do anything like that with our space equipment without multiple course changes in route. It should not be presumed that comets are so perfect in their approach that they need no corrective measures. As they near the sun they frequently produce a phenomenon labeled “ion tails.” Contrary to expectations about emissions from a comet, these ion tails have some force and do not succumb to solar pressure but counteract it. By cometship reasoning, it seems likely that these particular effects are some manner of thrust to more correctly adjust the incoming comet’s pathway within that very dangerous area. These comets have been named over a century ago as the “sungrazers.”

The original sungrazers, move in closer to the sun than all other comets. Typically, they are the ones that fascinate us with their sweeping brilliance and quiet mystery. Thinking of them in terms of mysterious starships increases that mystery a million fold. The original sungrazers are classified as a group of comets because they individually appear from the same point in the sky and, thus, are related in some fashion. Scientist usually understand them as fragments of one larger body that broke apart eons ago while still far out in deep space. They approach us and retreat to a small, distant area in the sky near Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, a telling point in itself as explained in Robert K.G. temple’s “The Sirius Mystery.” Their appearances to Earth seem to have increased, starting with the late 1800s as the Industrial Revolution got underway. continuing through the last century and into the present. A careful examination of basic data about their appearances has resulted in verifiable patterns that reveal their true nature as controlled objects in addition to their non-standard motions. Science has not discussed these timely patterns, perhaps for good reason. After all, nature would not behave that way.

reply to post by Aliensun



Rethinking Comets 3

Since accurate records have been kept, there have been at least fourteen sungrazers noted to appear from the region of Sirius. They are named the Kreutz group. Below is a listing of the years of each individual comet as it entered the inner system and made its closest approach to the sun.
1668
1843
1880 returns in 83 years to be 1963
1882 returns in 83 years to be 1965
1886
1887 returns in 83 years to be 1970
*************************
1945
1963 formerly 1880
1965 formerly 1965
1970 formerly 1897
*************************
1998 formerly 1963 and before that was 1880
2006 formerly 1965 and before that was 1882
2007 formerly 1970 and before that was 1887
2013
The 2013 year above represents comet Ison, the new one coming soon to a world near you! It seems to have no earlier mate, except if linked to the comet of 1945 for a suspected earlier return we have a span of 68 years. While that time span does not match the other, it is within their time boundaries. (We are in no position to judge how long it should take a deep space ship to make a voyage between stars or what manner of ship or velocity they may use or even why they may do so. To argue against the premise of star-crossing ships within a few decades of time is an exercise in futility driven more by an unconscious attempt to project human values upon totally unknown beings than any shred of knowledge. Better to accept the data at face value and wonder if it may connect to the appearance of UFOs.)

Seemingly, they appear rather randomly without order. Yet a closer look at the list discloses three groupings, one in the latter 1880s, one in the latter 1900s, and a current group in the early 2000 years. Those with notations after the years are the ones important to this finding. Further, we can discern a more specific pattern if we follow the comets of 1880, 1882 and 1887 and match them to the returns of 1963, 1965 and 1970. There is a 83 year span between each of these matched sets. What appears to be six specific comets on the list is actually only three, the first three having returned again after a trip of 83 years.
Further still, we notice a general similarity of these last set on the list to the three comets of1998, 2006 and 2007. The times between them are not as perfectly matched as the early returns, but very similar, 35, 41 and 42 years respectfully. This last connection would be of little substance except for what we have learned about the earlier two sets. What we find in the final analysis here—which is not rocket science!—is a connection that indicates that of the thirteen sungrazers, nine can be accepted as the return of three at three different epochs. Space restrictions demand that other similarities of these comets such as perihelion distances (closest approaches to the sun) brightness (faint versus very bright, etc.) and even more concrete connections from spectra analysis cannot be included herein. This has been a simple exercise, but indisputable as it is basic comet data found in many places.

That these clusters represent three comets making three appearances each instead of nine individuals is startling and mind-numbing. But it is the exact kind of data expected to be found when looking at comets from the cometship perspective. This simple data supports the original premise that long-period comets do not truly in “orbit” but are making trips between their home stars and our star. Need it be mentioned that these habitats are not to be thought of what we would normally think of as a starship. Taking them as they are represent here, demands new areas of thinking and investigation. Acceptance of the comets returning after only an absence of 83 years or less negates the periods assigned by the astronomers by many factors of ten. But the hard facts about the comets cannot be discarded. It is the prior thinking that totally must be thrown out.

Orbits calculated for long-period comes are based upon a very small fraction of the observed motions that can be captured in a relatively short period of time. Few comets are observed beyond the orbit of Jupiter, whether coming or going. Exactly where they go and how far is always a guess. The orbit of Comet Kohoutek (1973) was supposedly very precisely known as to where and when it moved where it was expected to go. From that information a theoretical orbit of ideal proportions was projected. Thus, Kohoutek was assigned an aphelion distance (furthest distance reached from the sun) of 3,600 AU according to multiple orbital measurements made when it was in close.

A later “finalized” version of the orbit was offered which listed the comet as hyperbolic and therefore it could not have a determinable length or period because that type of motion eventually would take it out of the solar system. Of course, that final determination made the earlier figures far too small by many factors of ten. Something went drastically wrong. Not untypical with the motions of comets, this one in particular, the sweep of that comet around the sun was carefully charted. Except as frequently is the case, that body didn’t maintain its given trajectory and mysteriously went its own course around and away from the sun. The blue ion tail is often the evidence from sungrazers that they have adjusted their critical motions.
A non-astronomer may want to believe that the sungrazers are nothing more than nine comets returning in short-period ,83-year orbits. That explanation sounds reasonable enough as the best solution to satisfy that the nine comets are only three. But the implications of that explanation would be an injustice to astronomers, may make some angry. It belittles them by implying faults in their labors of observation and/or computations of every one of these comets if not many more. --One of the principles upon which the cometship theory is based is that the hard data of the scientists will be accepted unless there is a clear, legitimate reason otherwise. In this instance, there is no need to throw out any scientific data. Better yet, look at the whole picture that Science presents to us and wonder where it starts and ends.
Astronomers will be in a different bind to dismiss the connections of these comets. First, of course, they will never agree that the nine comets they have logged are merely three. Second, they will rely on their long-standard prediction times as being more or less accurate. Therefore, they will intone that suggestions of wild things like cometships are rubbish, beneath their bother (as with their views of UFOs). But they have no formulas, no excuse mechanism powerful enough with which to cover themselves. Astronomers have a long history of covering up and ignoring all manner of discrepancies they find in the appearance and motions of comets. This cited instances are nothing new. So the members of the fraternity must vehemently deny the assertions posted here.

Do not accept for a minute that the cometary community in astronomy does not know what comets really are. Be they dogmatic, given to old ways, sure, but not dumb, and definitely not outside the ring of scientific specialties that knows the deepest secrets of government. As the 1977 Viking probes discovered that the mysterious grooves on Phobos were evidence of intelligent interaction upon that body, so ast

reply to post by Aliensun



Rethinking Comets 4
The IAU listing also included a sub-set of comet-like objects that were found over the last three decades by sun-pointed satellites, SOHO and STEARO. In thirteen years of observing, these systems found 1277 of these small comets by 2007. They consist of three groupings and some independent members. Some 86% of that number are identify with the original sungrazers discussed, also known as the Kreutz group. Two other smaller groups comprise most of the remaining members. These objects have been identified by sensors only and are not seen with the human eye. Due to the nature of their being detected, not enough time passed while under observation to allow precise calculations of their motions to be determined. These are NOT included in the amount of 2644 known number of true comets given earlier. The IAU keeps them separate because they are machine discovered and bear little relationship to ordinary comets especially in terms of general appearance, especially, size. Available data is incomplete for public access, but it appears that the Kreutz group of these smaller “comets” falls entirely into the sun while most of the others do not.

These smaller, less volatile comet-like objects are not true comets but behave more like the meteors that we see leaving smoke trails, shedding parts and exploding as they enter Earth’s atmosphere. Rather than heating by air friction which happens in a matter of seconds to our meteors, these bodies moving close to the sun are in critical positions for comparatively extended periods of time. They are subjected to direct radiation at close range. Regardless of their size and density they exhibit typical vaporization effects as they are annihilated. Not being controlled habitats, they don’t produce a coma for self protection and are quickly decimated by direct exposure to their hard surfaces. It is no wonder that some exhibit comet-like tails as they plunge into the fiery furnace.

Why do they consist of relatively large numbers associated with the standard pathway of the dozen or so of the larger, more typical comets in the Kreutz group? We know the answer to that question also. Our meteor showers are for the most part are dust shed by comets and have followed along more or less spread out behind in the orbital track of the parent. Of course, mere dust from the comets burning up in the sun will not be visible to the sensors scanning that area. What would be noticed would be larger particulate matter. These would come to a lesser extent from the blowing out of the coma material from the nucleus and mainly from a scavengering done by the comet over its long journey. The sensor-found “comets” are nothing more than the larger debris that would follow a comet as it comes in from deep space. –Perhaps even its dumped trash! A comet that comes part way across the galaxy at a phenomenal velocity will gravitationally attract far smaller bodies along its path. These particles and pieces are gravitationally sucked up along the way from out where there is little gravity and they have little motion. Thus, attracted, they would rush toward the gravitational mass of the passing comet but rarely catch it, not unlike a dog will chase a car. This material, having attained a direction and some aspect of velocity from the legitimate body, trails it and eventually suffers the consequences of not being directly guided as it nears the sun.

Bear in mind that this thread does not pretend to be a scientific white paper. I am not a scientist and have no training or in-depth knowledge of astronomy. What I do claim is that I have looked at cometary astronomy and see that it is a house of cards with no substance or foundation, with hollow rooms filled with wrong thinking, misinformation self-promotion and in the last few decades censorship To prove one aspect of that, we need do nothing more than examine one major component of current comet theory. That is the “creation” of the Oort cloud, the existence of which is continually cited in that field and public works. It is a rock-solid mainstay theory of the field—so they would have us believe. The problem is that it has no standing as a viable scientific-derived theory. It is a simple assumption based on other assumptions.

Early on in the study of comets, the first determination to be made about those bodies was the issue of whether they come from within or without the solar system. Among those that counted as principals in the field, the “within” proponents won, of course, because it made sense. But their dilemma was just starting. They could not specify exactly what caused comets or explain where they came from out of the void. Certainly, no evidence could be found in our area of space to supply an appropriate answer to these nagging problems.

In 1950, Jan Oort, a Dutch astronomer, drawing upon the work of Opik done some years earlier and the orbits of 19 well-defined comets, fabricated a perfect home for the comets. Using the widely known theory about the supposed origins of the asteroidal belt as his basis, Oort offered the concept that comets, too, were debris left after a planet (belatedly named Typhon) exploded while orbiting in the area between Mars and Jupiter. Some materials, those we know as the asteroidal belt, remained in fairly much the same orbit. Other pieces fell variously into the sun, to impact on other planets, or out of the system altogether if they achieved escape velocity. Oort expanded the concept to include comets by speculating that existing comets, which he estimated at nearly 2 trillion in number, were lucky enough to eventually attain motions to carry themselves out beyond the planets to the far outer edge of the solar system where they could exist relatively unmolested for eons. Oort recommended the “passing star” reason for how comets became dislodged enough to tumble inward.

Oort wrote: “We may conclude that a sensible fraction of the long-period comets have come from a region of space extending from a distance of 20,000 AU to distances of at least 150,000 AU from the sun, that is, almost to the nearest star. This does not mean that they are interstellar. They belong very definitely to the solar system because they share accurately the sun’s motion. There is no reasonable escape, I believe, from the conclusion that the comets have always belonged to the solar system. They must then form a huge cloud extending, according to the numbers cited above, to distances of at least 150,000 AU and possible still further.” (Taken from a reprinting of his theory in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900-1975.)

The Oort cloud theory exists only because comets must be supposed to come from some natural cause out there somewhere. It was honestly unthinkable for Science to consider any other source. It may surprise many readers that Oort’s theory about comet origins came as recently as 1950. Cometary studies didn’t carry much weight in astronomical matters in those days. They were too fleeting for good study, but amazing things to observe as a hobby for professional astronomers and a few dedicated diehards. It wasn’t until the sungrazers starting reappearing in the 1960s that interest was rekindled from the excitement of the 1880s group. In the interim until today, the exploding planet concepconcept for comet births has been discarded and Oort’s original 19 comets he used to buttress his theory were found to be poor examples for his theory. Little remains of Oort’s original theory except for the need even today of his imaginary cloud of trillions of comets safely anchored to this solar system but out there yet hiding from us except for a few each year that come to tempt us mightily.

reply to post by Aliensun



Rethinking Comets 5

Even if you have read this far, I doubt that you have been convinced about cometships. At least, I hope not. That was not exactly my intent. I just want you to think. After all, I have supplied little more than mere words of supposition and little true scientific data to make my tenuous case. I’ve tried to appeal to your thinking mind and not to directly argue against a mountain of standard views. After all, they hold all of the cards. The data I have used is far from being current data or even extensive. Yet, what I have accumulated for a book over the years is far in excess of what I’ve been able to condense within this thread. You won’t come across what I propose here anywhere else. The cometship theory, as I call it, is an original work.

Finally, the release of current data on comets, similar to what we have not been shown or told about of the grooves of Phobos, is very limited and never goes beyond what they want us to believe. As I’ve stated and it bears repeating time and time again, the Viking probes in 1977 provided unexpected proof that Phobos had been intelligently manipulated. That was at the time when the data started being censored as Malin & co. was put in control of what had been free and public data. Few complained. The 1986 return of Halley’s Comet gave them further insights if not outright shocks. They definitely knew the truth by then. But they had work to do, and they have been doing it. The public is step-by-step being brought up to the realization that we are not alone. The time is fast approaching when they must tell us in some fashion that they have found signs of life. More than likely it will be primitive life forms or fossils on Mars. The news of intelligent beings on Mars, comets or intelligent signals must come later after the initial shock has been integrated. It will be done. It must be done.

Assessing the weight of this new viewpoint about comets will be challenging to anyone not familiar with another grand mystery of our time, that of the almost mythical UFOs. After all, after more than half a century and literally tons and tons of supporting data—initially from the US government itself—the phenomena still wears the cloak of mystery. But it is a fading mystery. Fully half of the US population now believes in other intelligent life beside ourselves and a large portion of that segment also accepts that UFOs are visiting alien craft. Yet, UFOs are still unproven because of the hand-in-hand partnership of science ignoring the phenomena and government denying it. Why has that the situation been fashioned in that way? The larger answer is because of one important reason. Government decided long ago with official studies that the public was not ready, and in truth, it was not. And beyond polls taken in the US, there is the rest of the world that must also be brought up to the most modern views of the on-going discoveries of science and the follow through to accept the existence of ETs and UFOs. The world simply is not ready, yet.

Obviously, there is a clear connection between UFOs and comets. Don’t believe it? Search out NASA publication SP-198, Atlas of Cometary Forms: Structures Near the Nucleus, 1969, if you can find it. That work published many of the old drawings of astronomers made over a hundred-year period. It was a period in time in which UFOs and visiting aliens were unthinkable. And importantly, a time when the astronomers literally drew their renditions of what they were seeing through their eyepieces and did not rely on photographs. In a comparison between the two methods, the eye was the wiser, the hand more honest. The eye had the ability to see small details that the camera would normally washout with over-exposure. While absolutely none of the astronomers believed in intelligent actions happened around the nuclei inside the comet comas, they kept to their principles and detailed remarkably puzzling scenes anyway, time after time. You would see as much today in the most recent photographs if the science had remained loyal to its sacred duties. Being shut out of the pure knowledge, we must work around the roadblocks of government and science, do our own thinking and put two-and-two together. As of last evening, several internet sources have current articles on the up serge in UFO activity this year.

As an old codger of 75 years, my productive time and my mere waiting time is running out. This part of my work, a decades-long project with even longer on the shelf, is the direct result of my having a UFO abduction experience in 1964. I’ve never hid from that and won’t now. For me to say, “The aliens made me do it,” wouldn’t be exactly wrong.

Your challenge is to do some thinking on your own outside of consensus reality thinking. It has not been my style on ATS to defend my threads with replies to responses.

And one last tip for you: Big Brother Science likes to pretend that it operates by the harsh rule of Occam’s Razor: accept the simplest solution to any situation if it works. Sagan used that argument very effectively against the reality of UFOs. That methodology is fine and good when studying how basic nature works, but it is an impediment to understanding when confronted with undreamed about intelligent actions and events performed by other beings.

Well, having read ALL of what you had to say, I think your biggest problem is one of lack of any personal astronomcal experience.

As I always say with matters astronomical, its up there in the sky for anyone to see, so ANYONE can get themselves a telescope and see it for themselves.

Conversely, you, on many occasions in this text, assert that:

With the subject of comets, the study of which is virtually closed to all of the public, we have an area where the dictates of Science/government are the only voices we hear.

But its simply not true.

There are thousands of amateur astronomers in their back yards every evening, observing the very things you say are closed off from the public. As one example, just a few days ago there was news that Terry Lovejoy had discovered yet another comet from his back yard.

Indeed the overwhelming vast majority of comet observations, certainly important in deriving brightness curves, come from amateurs. And determining orbital paths is something that any amateur can do using their own observations. And this also includes spectra observations, determining sizes, unusual flare ups, and all the rest.

But somehow... you dont seem to know any of this.
Its not that you dismiss it. Its not that you argue against it.
Its like you didnt even know.

Buy yourself a telescope. Thats all.
Edit - one final note. You say you've spent decades researching and writing. Thats ok, but on the other hand my argument comes from having personally seen and photographed more comets with my own eyes, than I can remember. For many decades. I really have lost count.

reply to post by alfa1


Alfa1's response ignores the complete body of data and ideas that I have presented and focuses solely upon character assassination, all data aside. Why? Because that is the typical and only weapon that conventional scientific thinking of comets can offer in response to a better explanation for the historical views of them as inert, natural bodies.

That was Sagan's tactic and of Science in general since the concept of alien UFOs has entered human consciousness. Yet, day by day, Science, fueled by government, marches toward bringing us closer and closer to accepting and actually finding verification for other intelligences out there somewhere. But also as with UFOs, it s OK for them to talk in explicit terms of those distant and exotic civilizations, but don't dare suggest that they are here at our door.

Well, folks, they are here and have been here for a very long, long time.

reply to post by Aliensun


To be honest, Alfa1s post is spot on. How can we take your post(s) seriously with such a blatant error in thinking in it?

Can you deny any of what he posted?

gavron
reply to post by Aliensun

 

To be honest, Alfa1s post is spot on. How can we take your post(s) seriously with such a blatant error in thinking in it?

Can you deny any of what he posted?

Alfa1s "is spot on?"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? His whole post was, as I said, an attempt at character assassination. He seems to imply that anyone buying a little telescope--or even a big one for that matter--can look up there and discern exactly what is going on. --Well, yes, you can if you have memorized exactly what you have been told by the authorities about what comets are.

, Now bear with me here as I explain something very important. First, for the proper perspective on my work, you must accept or at least toy with the possibility that UFOs are indeed aliens in their rather small "scout" devices. If you cannot give that broad-minded view a nod, then you and others of like mind are wasting my time and yours. It is fairly simple. A closed mind that can't accept UFOs certainly won't accept any strange ideas about comets.

Those folks will repeatedly argue that all is well and good in conventionally cometary astronomy and UFOs are all baloney anyway because...because they say so. And yes, ever professional or experienced amateur astronomy buffs will be the most vocal. I don't doubt but what people from NASA, ESA, etc. will attempt to discredit my words. So be it.

Aliensun

gavron
reply to post by Aliensun

 

To be honest, Alfa1s post is spot on. How can we take your post(s) seriously with such a blatant error in thinking in it?

Can you deny any of what he posted?

Alfa1s "is spot on?"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? His whole post was, as I said, an attempt at character assassination. He seems to imply that anyone buying a little telescope--or even a big one for that matter--can look up there and discern exactly what is going on. --Well, yes, you can if you have memorized exactly what you have been told by the authorities about what comets are.

, Now bear with me here as I explain something very important. First, for the proper perspective on my work, you must accept or at least toy with the possibility that UFOs are indeed aliens in their rather small "scout" devices. If you cannot give that broad-minded view a nod, then you and others of like mind are wasting my time and yours. It is fairly simple. A closed mind that can't accept UFOs certainly won't accept any strange ideas about comets.

Those folks will repeatedly argue that all is well and good in conventionally cometary astronomy and UFOs are all baloney anyway because...because they say so. And yes, ever professional or experienced amateur astronomy buffs will be the most vocal. I don't doubt but what people from NASA, ESA, etc. will attempt to discredit my words. So be it.

Actually it's hard to take you seriously when you yourself are being extremely biased, yet ask for people to have an open mind.

You've just stated basically that:

If you believe comets are what scientist say they are, then you think UFO's is "baloney".

You just attacked the character of every single person that does not agree with your thoughts on comets. You just also attacked anyone that works with astronomy either on a professional level, or as amateurs.

Yet you are going to complain that someone brings your character into question?

Most people will read that and will failed to be impressed or even consider anything you posted here in your OP because you just insulted a very large group of people, instead of sticking to your own topic and debating the points of it.

For example: if comets are craft controlled by intelligent beings, then why make a suicidal dive into Jupiter?

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Or why make a suicidal dive into the sun?

Sun Grazing Comets

Or allow NASA to slam a large object into the side of one of their craft?

Deep Impact

Animated images from the impact with comet 9P/Temple:



Care to answer these questions? Or would you rather to continue your diatribe of insulting large groups of people?

reply to post by Aliensun


Please don't use UFOs in the meaning of describing alien controlled craft...

I confess I haven't read you wall of text. Alfa1 is a better man than I for having done so but I do not see how you take his reply as a personal attack, at worst it can be dismissive (I was just that myself I just chose not to have to read the post or call your attention that it would prevent many people from reading what you had to state).

From what I got from the replies I do not see a good base to read the material at all. It is not only what you present but how you present and how people and yourself react to it...

In any case I would take the chance to take a look on the critical analysis done to general scientific claims done on the
The Electric Comet documentary (in support of the elctric universe view) but pertinent in the views it presents regarding asseverations from mainstream science...

reply to post by eriktheawful


I'm extremely biased, when the whole of astronomy is biased toward a very mysterious phenomenon in that can only be explained in their terms with a collection of ad hoc theories?

With the cometship theory, ONE explanation covers the whole of it albeit ingrained standard thinking can't accept some of the ramifications.

reply to post by Panic2k11


You can't bother to fully read the material with a "What if..." frame of mind but have absolutely no qualms in joining up on the naysayer side . I'll put you down as not believing in UFOs either.
That is my simple test for the amount of open-mindedness expressed (or not) by posters.

I known about and alluded to the fact in my presentation that one comet-like object fell into the sun and one into Jupiter. That does not disprove my case. Good lord, if you non-UFO believers fail to accept any credible UFO data how can you honestly accuse me of being biased?

I'll repeat the crux of the matter to make it clear. If you can't allow that UFOs are alien craft visiting, then you are predisposed to deny they are here in any fashion. You folks need to deal with your lack of forward thinking. It is dysfunctional to a better understanding of the universe.

reply to post by Aliensun

, Now bear with me here as I explain something very important. First, for the proper perspective on my work, you must accept or at least toy with the possibility that UFOs are indeed aliens in their rather small "scout" devices. If you cannot give that broad-minded view a nod, then you and others of like mind are wasting my time and yours. It is fairly simple. A closed mind that can't accept UFOs certainly won't accept any strange ideas about comets.

Whats important is to see how stupid your assumption quoted above is. Too simple.

(edit: I stand by these strong words and are in no way an attack of your character OP but a plain fact in my eyes because you have the nerve to call and assume what another s mind believes and its limits of imagination.)

The best ammunition you have is to say throw out what works so we can play trial and error to create new explanations because I don't like or maybe don't fully understand what science has to offer.

Are you playing a child's game or really searching for knowledge?

reply to post by Aliensun

if you non-UFO believers fail to accept any credible UFO data how can you honestly accuse me of being biased?

What a perfect chance to let the readers know if they believe in UFOs or not from your admitted biased views.


Do I believe in UFOS as you describe them being of alien origin?

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Aliensun

 

, Now bear with me here as I explain something very important. First, for the proper perspective on my work, you must accept or at least toy with the possibility that UFOs are indeed aliens in their rather small "scout" devices. If you cannot give that broad-minded view a nod, then you and others of like mind are wasting my time and yours. It is fairly simple. A closed mind that can't accept UFOs certainly won't accept any strange ideas about comets.

Are you playing a child's game or really searching for knowledge?

I'm playing a game alright, with you minds. So far you haven't understood the rules. Actually, there is only one rule: You must gingerly at least allow the existence of alien UFOs before your mind can encompass such a strange concept. It is that simple.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


You fail, again, to get the startling point which clearly shows that you don't accept alien UFOs. I'll put this in as few words as possible.

The virtually proven reality of UFOs accepted by about half of the world's population except for the authorities of science and government is in itself a strong indication to wonder if comets are intelligently controlled and responsible for the UFO. In reverse, the mysterious phenomenon of the comet is a strong contributor to the concept that those UFO things that the authorities have stoutly denied for over half a century and longer are real an from the comets.

Granted, there are deep ramifications about accepting comets as alien craft. After all, this argument can be easily carried back to when did these comets first start coming to earth an what roles have they played in the development of mankind? So, yeah, it is very slippery slope for some locked minds. Andsometimes too much formal education becomes a burden toward a true precept about the universe and our individual selves.

reply to post by Aliensun


Please address the points listed about by numerous other posters, including the little matter of Shoemaker-Levy 9's spectacularly messy demise. By the way I have a telescope myself and I've used it to look at comets. I fail to grasp any of your points.

reply to post by Aliensun

You fail, again, to get the startling point which clearly shows that you don't accept alien UFOs. I'll put this in as few words as possible.

No sir,

you have just failed in answering correctly whether I believe that UFOs can be Alien craft.

The virtually proven reality of UFOs accepted by about half of the world's population except for the authorities of science and government is in itself a strong indication to wonder if comets are intelligently controlled and responsible for the UFO.

I can make up statements and say that its accepted by all the worlds population except yourself and there is a conspiracy by all of us to keep you in the dark.

That would be about as factual as what you have posted above.

it is very slippery slope for some locked minds.

Yes making a statement about what is accepted by billions except for authorities of science and government
is what a locked mind on a slippery slope would do, thanks for the example.

Authorities of Government


Clinton, Regan and Carter are 3 presidents that seem to accept.

Are United states presidents authorities of government or not?

Aliensun

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Aliensun

 

, Now bear with me here as I explain something very important. First, for the proper perspective on my work, you must accept or at least toy with the possibility that UFOs are indeed aliens in their rather small "scout" devices. If you cannot give that broad-minded view a nod, then you and others of like mind are wasting my time and yours. It is fairly simple. A closed mind that can't accept UFOs certainly won't accept any strange ideas about comets.

Are you playing a child's game or really searching for knowledge?

I'm playing a game alright, with you minds. So far you haven't understood the rules. Actually, there is only one rule: You must gingerly at least allow the existence of alien UFOs before your mind can encompass such a strange concept. It is that simple.

Sorry but when a troll exposes themselves I will try not feeding them anymore even though its so tempting.

Enjoy your game,