We ARE Change:Gives You Everything You Need To Know About ELEnin/Nibiru

reply to post by Omniview


A collision by a satellite would have little effect on a large body.

Yes theres a lot of dis information regarding elenin, but a 20 meter body that may have a very large mass, this would allow the body to have similar gravitational effects that a planet has. But who said it was only 20 meters?

There is considerable proof that because of elenin unusual orbit(wont go into detail) that when elenin aligns with the earth and other planets that the alignment is prolonged, i.e the alignment with elenin lasts about the same time other planets do, hence why elenin is now included into seismic models.

A solar body could be the size of a golf ball, be millions of miles from earth, with a trejectory that doesnt come anywhere near earth, but if that solar golf ball had a hugh mass( dense in heavy matter) then its gravitational pull could be considerable given its the size of a golf ball.

I think, everyone thinks this thing is headed for earth, but personally i think thats bs, what i do believe is elenin is a very very dense object, also elenin can only be observed with infrared, making this a very dim object indeed, this could be for a number of reasons, one of my favourites, that its composition makes elenin very efficient in absorbing light and radiation, apposed to reflecting. if this is the case, it would be differcult to gather data remotely from elenin, even for the TPTB sponsored scientists.

I dont think they are lying when TPTB say its small, but since majority of joe public dont understand mass, also given that determining the mass of such dim objects is very challenging, its not worth mentioning, all they know is this object has enough mass to amplify earthquakes on earth and the moon when aligned hint hint!

I saw Hail Bopp when I was out in the desert. Elenin main rock is only 20 km in size and will probably be too far from us but the coma is supposed to be 100,000 km long. It definitely could be a problem for earth, but I am suprised that there is little mention of 2005 YU55. It comes within .0079 AU of Earth, if you look at the NASA JPL website it sites directly on earth, yet I am not certain on it's size. Could anyone direct me in the NASA JPL small-body database as to where it gives the sizes of these NEO's. Here's the link for YU55. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by MrKnoxx


At 8:00 a.m. (mountain standard) on Sunday, July 17, 2011, I was able to click the link in your post and read the fascinating article. 3 hours later there's no access to the website via the link in your post. Also, Google has the following message, to block the website:

We Are Change | Archive | NewWorld Order/Globalization
www.wearechange.org/?cat=423 - Cached- Block all www.wearechange.org results

Thanks for your post and the article.

reply to post by MrKnoxx


[quoe]1. The claims of increased quakes is wrong? 2010 MSNBC Article: And just for Stereo theres 2 points from 2 different scientists. One for, one against the theory, heres one for.
Quakes are not increasing. You provided a link to "Today News". They suggest one unnamed scientist says there is more activity. Later the article says:

But in the grand scheme of things, geologists say this is just Mother Nature as usual.

Thanks for posting the link that supports my position of no increase when it states:

"From our human perspective with our relatively short and incomplete memories and better and better communications around the world, we hear about more earthquakes and it seems like they are more frequent," Arrowsmith said. "But this is probably not any indication of a global change in earthquake rate of significance."

What is changing is the ability of people to get quick and easy access to headlines.

Later they name the 1 scientist as Stephen S. Gao.

The USGS as a whole states that quakes are down.

2. The claims of increased volcanic activity is wrong? July 7th: Volcanic activity may be on the rise

All the article says is that

It seems that volcanic activity may be starting to increase once again.

That appears to be nothing more than the feelings of the author - an unsubstantiated whimsy on their part.

Volcanic activity has been stable over decades.
[url=http://volcano.si.edu/education/questions/index.cfm?faq=06]Has volcanic activity been increasing?

Finally, we plot below the record since reasonably comprehensive reporting of global volcanism began in the 1960s. Note that the number of confirmed erupting volcanoes has leveled off between 50 and 70 per year through the past four decades, and a linear regression line through the data indicates that volcanism has been virtually constant.

The Smithsonian Institute says virtually constant.

Since it is well known that there has not been an increase in earthquakes and since the volcanic activity rate has been virtually constant we know that the temporary surge mentioned does not affect overall trends, only local trends.

3. The earths magnetic field is not off?

A straw man argument. I never said that the field does not change. I stated that the field has been changing ever since it was first measured and located. I also pointed out that the daily change is greater than the mean rate of change.

4. The claims of the alignments being important are wrong? Well, I already showed you the dates which you can look at yourself but lets repeat them again.

Listing a number of fake dates and claims of alignments in no way is a correlation. We already know that the first date is a sloppy alignment. We already know that the date for the 3/11/2011 alignment is a LIE. We already know that a quake of 6 or above occurs on average every other day.

5. The Earths wobble and axis are not getting worse?

These are not making the wobble worse. They reduce the wobble. You did get that out of the articles right? You can understand what is happening can't you?

You even used someone's blog as supporting evidence?

That's so funny. You must have been working hard to find these pathetic links to support your failed conclusions. A news article. Another news article with a whimsical thought by the author. A blog.

PS The user name is stereologist. I will report anyone that alters user names including my own.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity


First off it is not 20m across. Estimates are that it is 2000 to 4000m across.

hence why elenin is now included into seismic models.

No real scientist is using Elenin or any other planet in seismic models.

also elenin can only be observed with infrared

Not true at all. It was discovered in the optical range and has been tracked in the optical range.

all they know is this object has enough mass to amplify earthquakes on earth and the moon when aligned

Nothing other than the Moon appears to be correlated with quakes. The Moon is correlated with uncommon low intensity quakes. There is nothing to suggest that the Moon amplifies any of the quakes.

Originally posted by PunchingBag80
I saw Hail Bopp when I was out in the desert. Elenin main rock is only 20 km in size and will probably be too far from us but the coma is supposed to be 100,000 km long. It definitely could be a problem for earth, but I am suprised that there is little mention of 2005 YU55. It comes within .0079 AU of Earth, if you look at the NASA JPL website it sites directly on earth, yet I am not certain on it's size. Could anyone direct me in the NASA JPL small-body database as to where it gives the sizes of these NEO's. Here's the link for YU55. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

now 2005 YU55 is about the size of a 10 storey building is classified as a NEO and as mentioned passes earth at .0079 AU (roughly half the distance between the earth and the moon)

at least this is the calulated trejectory minus the gravitational influence of other objects out there that are possibly strong enough to manipulate its course,hypothetically.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity

at least this is the calulated trejectory minus the gravitational influence of other objects out there that are possibly strong enough to manipulate its course,hypothetically.

If any of those hypothetical objects existed then we'd see the motions in other objects.

reply to post by stereologist


well most of the info i got from offical sources regarding seismic models for planetary alignment, although as to whether leonid elenin is russian on the other hand i dunno on that one. it is my speculation that its the mass that is being smoke screened and determining the mass as an amateur astronomer, they are unlikely to have access to the right equiptment, so the conspiracy chariot goes on

reply to post by technologicalsingularity

well most of the info i got from offical sources regarding seismic models for planetary alignment

Can you name the source or show anything about this? The USGS says alignments are meaningless. Maybe you mean an official source outside of the US.

The mass is going to be difficult to determine. Apparently it is small since the passage of the comet through the asteroid belt caused no measurable affects on the asteroids. Had it altered the course in a measurable way, then the mass could have been estimated.

reply to post by stereologist


it wasnt online where i got that info, so i cannot provide a source, sorry. but its quite easy to find out once you have the data, also differing planetary order when aligned appears to cause more/less influence, you should discover after analysis that its not just quakes.


1. collect historical data on planetary alignments
2. collect seismic historic data
3. collect CME/TIMED historical data
4. compare and analysis - ignore 5.8M and below

Does anyone have comments on Mensur Omerbashich. I have found his name associated with planetary alignments and claims of being part of the Bosnian Royal family and all sorts of odd things. The oddest seems to be a lack of publication in peer reviewed journals. He has the article online with a claim of submission. Weird. People don't offer their work before publication. There also seems to be a lot of confusion that just because a link shows up at Cornell where there is a large archive that the person is associated with that institution.

I did find this paper:
Gauss-Vanícek Spectral Analysis of the Sepkoski Compendium: No New Life Cycles
Found in: Computing in Science and Engineering
By Mensur Omerbashich
Issue Date:July 2006
pp. 26-30

This is listed under the publications for the person claiming that planetary alignments are related to quakes.

I am looking for scientific commentary on this claim.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity

it wasnt online where i got that info, so i cannot provide a source, sorry. but its quite easy to find out once you have the data, also differing planetary order when aligned appears to cause more/less influence, you should discover after analysis that its not just quakes.

In other words, there is no official source as you claimed. You made it all up.

1. collect historical data on planetary alignments
2. collect seismic historic data
3. collect CME/TIMED historical data
4. compare and analysis - ignore 5.8M and below

That has been done and it shows no correlation to anything at all including the Moon. The Moon is associated with a few low intensity quakes.

reply to post by stereologist


The moon also affects tides and animal/fish feeding patterns. Other than that, not much else.

original link won't work

reply to post by chooselove


Try the link at this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is supposed to be the same article.

Well I have come back a day later to find you still have not been able to refute anything said in this thread other than displaying your own opinions. You have proved my point in the process. And that point being, there is simply far too much data around to support the claims of myself and others that ELEnin MIGHT be something worse off then what we are being told, compared to the contrary of people like yourself.

Someone brought up the point earlier how it is very disturbing how the non ELE people are so disturbingly joyful to attack those who believe in it, yet can not produce much evidence at all to support their beliefs. Thus, backing my claim of fear.

This thread was to point out that a different news outlet was actually carrying the ELE theory and carrying it pretty damn well. Those of us who are smart enough not to believe everything and do our own research have come to the conclusion that, big surprise, your government might just be lying at the severity of this comet. To those still in denial, I can only say I hope you are 100% right, and I hope the Government, which has never lied to you in the past, will continue to tell you the truth.

reply to post by MrKnoxx

Well I have come back a day later to find you still have not been able to refute anything said in this thread other than displaying your own opinions. You have proved my point in the process. And that point being, there is simply far too much data around to support the claims of myself and others that ELEnin MIGHT be something worse off then what we are being told, compared to the contrary of people like yourself.

I suggest you go back and actually re-read the thread. The "earthquake alignment" theory was dismantled pretty thoroughly using both data and reasoning.

Someone brought up the point earlier how it is very disturbing how the non ELE people are so disturbingly joyful to attack those who believe in it, yet can not produce much evidence at all to support their beliefs. Thus, backing my claim of fear.

Actually, skeptics tend to attack false data and faulty reasoning, not the believers. The fear all seems to be coming from the people who can't stand to see their sadistic dreams of global destruction held up to the cold light of reality.

This thread was to point out that a different news outlet was actually carrying the ELE theory and carrying it pretty damn well. Those of us who are smart enough not to believe everything and do our own research have come to the conclusion that, big surprise, your government might just be lying at the severity of this comet. To those still in denial, I can only say I hope you are 100% right, and I hope the Government, which has never lied to you in the past, will continue to tell you the truth.

I have pointed out that the site you linked to was posting this "information" because it suited their neo-luddite agenda. In that respect, it is no different than any other political site. Some political sites criticize evolutionary biology, others deny global warming or attack stem cell research. You must be naive indeed to believe that "new media" never lie! They have even greater incentive to lie than the main stream media. They have a specific agenda and do not fear losing audience share, so there is no need to pretend to be unbiased. Furthermore, unlike the mainstream media, they are not constrained by the possibility of being sued for libel or defamation. Those of us who are smart exercise just as much critical thinking when it comes to "alt media" sites. Simply reading blogs that parrot one another is not "research."

reply to post by MrKnoxx


So far nothing has been offered by the people that think Elenin is anything other than a small comet. It is interesting how gullible the believers are in such matters. The inability to see through the youtube hoaxes, the inability to check issues such as the fraud of alignments, the inability to understand that the object is coming nowhere close to Earth is rather interesting to ssay the least. How could anyone fall for these obvious hoaxes?

What sort of fear drives these people to believe in utter nonsense? What fear prevents believers for checking out the issues on their own? Are they fearful of seeing that they have been duped? What drives this "placing head in sand" desire?

An "alternative news outlet", a rather poorly written blog becomes a lightning rod for the gullible. Even when the blog out and out LIES about the material it links to the believers cannot see it - possibly due to their fear.

The paranoia of those that use straw man arguments such as "your government" miss the point that the comet has been tracked by many people many or most of whom are not associated with the government. The comet is on the predicted path, which is a path taking the comet far from Earth.