Elenin does it again!

reply to post by DJW001

No. A red dwarf is a "mainstream" star that would be perfectly visible to the naked eye, even if it were several light-years away.

not true some red dwarfs cant be seen with the naked well if its several light-years away.

reply to post by DJW001

Why wouldn't they? It's not like knowledge can hurt you.

NASA is known to hide secrets which they are hiding knowledge from the public.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

not true some red dwarfs cant be seen with the naked well if its several light-years away.

True, but we're talking about a star in our own solar system!

Sorry if posted, what if TPTB let this Elenin "discover" another comet to verify his original story?
That would make sense. More fuel to the fire maybe?

reply to post by mugger

Sorry if posted, what if TPTB let this Elenin "discover" another comet to verify his original story?
That would make sense. More fuel to the fire maybe?

A more interesting question is "why didn't Terral Croft and his crack team of 'astromoners' find it first?" Or all of those aliens channeling messages to seers?

reply to post by DJW001


Yeah, though I like reading through these type of posts and most questions can be answered by astronomy and physics, Certain questions around this whole scenario puzzle me.
Playing devil's advocate

When I'm puzzled by some announcement, I try to probe into more collaborating respected sources to learn more about what I don't understand. For that it is imperative to turn the TV set OFF!

If there was a dwarf star locked in place directly above or below our magnetic poles, we would not be able to see it without the help of a distant telescope in orbit to look above and below. Amateur astronomers would not be able to spot objects in those locations without NASA or a private telescope to use.

The Vatican owns many of the extremely powerful telescopes of the world... why? Who's paying for them? Is that in the program at church for the donations boxes? I thought the "Church" was about Religion, not astronomy. Let's overlook that weird situation & spending though.

I don't know how any of you can be 100% sure about anything IN SPACE, none of you have been there, all you have to go on is others' information. Yet you are all sure, well have fun with that, I'm sure that mentality will do you well in this life.

just great, FREAKING TWO ELENINS!!!!!!!!!!!!

that means all the prior doom and gloom that was calculated must now be doubled!
but should we REALLY be surprised anyway??? I mean its a pretty well known fact that nibirus tend to work in tandum.

double your pleasure.........
double your fun..............
double GET YOUR ASS TO THE OZARKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



EDIT:and yes..this means bring DOUBLE SILVER!!

If the named it P/2011 NO1 Elenin

It is actually a code that means

Post 2011 no one after Elenin

Which is proof that the original Elenin comet is in fact extinction event.

It is the final warning..

Run... Run for our lives

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
If there was a dwarf star locked in place directly above or below our magnetic poles, we would not be able to see it without the help of a distant telescope in orbit to look above and below. Amateur astronomers would not be able to spot objects in those locations without NASA or a private telescope to use...

You can see objects in space above the North pole from almost anywhere in the Northern hemisphere, and see objects directly above the South Pole from almost anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

For example, Polaris (the "North Star") is virtually directly over the North Pole. However, the North Star can be seen from almost all parts of the Northern Hemisphere. If there is a object bright enough to be seen by telescopes above one of the poles, there are many, many telescopes that can see them.

Here is a graphic I made for another thread that shows how an object close to the Earth (even closer that the Moon is to the Earth) directly "over" the South Pole can be seen be almost the whole Southern Hemisphere:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ccaff74fea0.jpg[/atsimg]

An object that was farther away would be able to be viewed by telescopes from even more of the Earth.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I know a lot about Paris, I have never been there.

Magnetic poles have nothing to do with your line of sight in space. Well, maybe you.

reply to post by nuttin4U


i posted a thread a few days ago regaurding this . . . .
keep in mind, it's in skunk works, and it is only a theory i've come up with so get your salt ready

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
If there was a dwarf star locked in place directly above or below our magnetic poles, we would not be able to see it without the help of a distant telescope in orbit to look above and below.

What? How then can you see the north star from anywhere in the northern hemisphere? The same geometry applies for the southern hemisphere; anyone anywhere in the southern hemisphere has line of sight to the entire southern celestial sphere.

The Vatican owns many of the extremely powerful telescopes of the world... why?

They own a few, I wouldn't call it "many" in terms of the very many extremely powerful telescopes that exist in the world.

I don't know how any of you can be 100% sure about anything IN SPACE, none of you have been there, all you have to go on is others' information.

I observe space for myself. It's not just others information, amateurs confirm these things for themselves all the time.

reply to post by DJW001


A brown dwarf emits light as well ?? How about a Dark Star.

Methinks you are inside the box ALL of the time.

And your pic is perfect for your posting style

reply to post by DJW001


Molotov, ELEnin ?

reply to post by fusionhunter


"Why can't we just use natural resources...?

Like Trees? They're natural and have been used for fire (Light and heat) for centuries.
I hear people talking about natural resources all the time, but I don't think people really understand what they're saying when they talk about them.


You mentioned Oil and Nuclear power, but you forgot about Wood, Coal, Hydrogen, and solar power. There's probably more that aren't coming to mind right now. If anyone can add to the list, please do so.

Solar, Nuclear, Wood, Oil, Coal, Hydrogen.
None of those are man made (They may be refined from other sources, but they all come out of nature.) so they're all natural resources. Some are better than others, but they all have drawbacks.

Coal and oil aren't the best to use in the modern era, but they were the best in the time they were developed, lacking modern technology.

Nuclear energy could have been much better than it is today, but with all the fear among those who chose not to actually educate themselves and decided to simply listen to others, the development of Nuclear energy took a huge hit.
("Fusionhunter". Your choice of that name says a lot with what I'm saying here if that's really what's in your heart. Had Nuclear Technology been developed, I really do believe we would be a lot closer to having that tech today, if not already having it.)


So we're left today in this modern era with:

Wood. It's not the cleanest choice of fuel, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon, and if the earth didn't like fire, it wouldn't let wildfires happen. You can make all the laws you want against burning wood, but when it comes down to burning a log to survive, or just looking at said log while freezing to death, a log will be burned. The earth has survived many years of it. I'm thinking it can survive a few more.

Solar. Solar sounds pretty good, nice and clean, but it only works during the daylight hours. It needs to be more efficient if it's used for electrical use. For heating, there's not much that can be done with it.

Hydrogen. Hydrogen sounds good, it burns clean, but we have to expend energy to get it just the same as oil. Is that refinement process clean? (I haven't read up on the process of extracting hydrogen so the case may be that it is a clean process, I don't know. I'm only asking those who know here.)


That's why I have a big problem with Hybrid/Electric cars. That electric power that's so clean comes from somewhere. Is it from some super secret new powerplant this country has that turns out unlimited power? I'm thinking probably not. It comes from the same powerplants we've been using for years now. Yeah, when you're out on the road, your car is putting out less emissions than other cars, but you still have to put gasoline into the hybrids, and you're still charging your cars on the very same electrical grids that you use in your house or place of business for those with electric cars.
When it comes to power, it has to come from somewhere, so where exactly do you get yours???

They are not an answer when it comes to using cleaner resources. A temporary fix at best, but nothing more.


"oh wait there's not enough money for them."
Until we as a people decide it's in our best interest to find, and fund, another source of power rather than fund our entertainment systems, we're stuck with what we have and things won't change. That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by fusionhunter

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
There's a theory out there that Elenin is the outer orbiting body of this Nemesis dwarf star inbound, as in Elenin is the red dwarf's Pluto. If this trend is continuing, we could be seeing the red dwarf's Neptune, and so on.

If a red dwarf is really inbound to us, we would be seeing it's planets before we see the star itself, no?

And this so called nemesis dwarf star came from where exactly? Oh that's right that isn't one......

Oh really? The Nemesis theory is very real and hardly a conspiracy. Infact, the NASA WISE mission was launched particularly to find the so called binary star or the planet larger than Jupiter.

en.wikipedia.org...(hypothetical_star)#Current_and_pending_scientific_searches_for_Nemesis

www.independent.co.uk...

If you grew up thinking there were nine planets and were shocked when Pluto was demoted five years ago, get ready for another surprise. There may be nine after all, and Jupiter may not be the largest.

The hunt is on for a gas giant up to four times the mass of Jupiter thought to be lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche (pronounced ty-kee), would be 15,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth's, and 375 times farther than Pluto's, which is why it hasn't been seen so far.

But scientists now believe the proof of its existence has already been gathered by a Nasa space telescope, Wise, and is just waiting to be analysed.

reply to post by Illustronic


Oh ho ho, how wrong you are Sir

www.independent.co.uk...

If you grew up thinking there were nine planets and were shocked when Pluto was demoted five years ago, get ready for another surprise. There may be nine after all, and Jupiter may not be the largest.

The hunt is on for a gas giant up to four times the mass of Jupiter thought to be lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche (pronounced ty-kee), would be 15,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth's, and 375 times farther than Pluto's, which is why it hasn't been seen so far.

But scientists now believe the proof of its existence has already been gathered by a Nasa space telescope, Wise, and is just waiting to be analysed

*double post*