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.
Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by scrapple
And unless we've got our own exclusive access to an unfiltered, unbiased stream of constantly updated information, we can't really know what's going to take place, now can we?
All we can do is live every day to our best, and always cling to a hope for the future.
[edit on 25-1-2008 by goosdawg]
Originally posted by mikesingh
Relax guys! That’s going to miss us by 1.4 LD (Lunar distance) on 29 Jan 08.
Check out the NASA/JPL browser here:
ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...
See? Cheers!
Originally posted by percievedreality
reply to post by scrapple
That is were I am at too scrapple.
I just don't see how the previous numbers from the 19th have changed so little compared to the new solution from Jan. 25th! Only very small differences, yet we are told that their margin of error dropped from 2/3s of an earth radius (6,371km * .66 = 4487km or 4,487,000m) to about 30m with these latest tracks. This means that the accuracy of their new data increased by over 1,495,660%! Yeah that is correct, 1,495,660 percent! Yet the numbers given in the latest ephemeris have not significantly changed? If the data is nearly the same then why is it they had such a large margin of error? Something dosen't add up here.
Interesting to note that NASA never released that information about "margin of error" until after they did this latest observation. Was 4,487km too much uncertainity to be acceptable? Would it make some uncomfortable? Also note that NASA has never given (publicly) odds of an impact, unlike the near Mars astroid on the 30th. Why, maybe because we are talking about the earth here, even a 1 in 10,000 chance is too much infomation for your average human to handle? Instead we are told that it has NO chance of hitting OR even effecting the earth. This is simply untrue, there is always a possibility, no matter how remote it may be!
So given that the previous data included such a larger error rate than they now claim to have, how is it that their older data isn't showing that they were more off, it was nearly identical to what the have now. What are the chances of that? Astronomical? Excuse the bad pun! Thoughts anyone, how do you account for this?
I also wanted to note how the latest posted link to the news story on NewsScientistSpace incorrectly leads people to believe that the radar images they include in the article are the ones obtained from Goldman on the 23rd. Those series of images are from several weeks ago and NOT the latest imagery obtained from Goldman that they purposely mislead you into assuming! Those exact images were linked to previously in this thread, maybe around page 20-30, if I am remembering correctly. Maybe they couldn't get the latest images, but to run these as the new photos is very deceitful in my opinion. I still think something could be up, why would they do this? Misleading the people, yet again.
[edit on 25-1-2008 by percievedreality]
[edit on 25-1-2008 by percievedreality]
Originally posted by dgtempe
I hate to be Chicken Little, but could someone please check out the status of the Global Conciousness site?
I've never seen this color before!!
noosphere.princeton.edu...
90% ????????