ELEnin Comet Is A NASA Psyop Cover For Incoming Dwarf Star

Originally posted by PlanetXGuy
Hi mzmusig:

Originally posted by mzmusiqWOW!!!!! This is all so sereal! We have got to start getting ready for the worst, because its coming!

"experiencing one long night that shields our side of the planet from the worst solar storms; while the southern hemisphere has one long day"

is this the day when the sun stands still?
like what someone from the bible commanded the sun to stand still (& the sun stood still)?

just asking...

In an attempt to actually answer a couple of the mass of unanswered questions in this thread, I will only be referencing to the NASA JPL Java App that has elenin's orbit path mapped out and to Wikipedia's information relating to earthquake history over the last 10 years.

Before I begin, I want to say that I am very open to the below logic, that in my head seems to be accurate, but to another reader may be flawed, being corrected as necessary by better thought out logic. I am also keen to attempt to draw any logical trains of thought I can to defend my below logic up to the point where it is clear that my logic is not accurate against the opposing arguments.

I think we can all agree that NASA's Orbit path of Elenin is nothing short of a mystery.

I read a few posts back that you can line up any 3 points in space by adjusting the viewing angle. This is 100 percent true. However, as to why someone felt that piece of information were important to mention for this particular topic is beyond my understanding.

I have personally used the Java app to track Elenin's orbit and carefully noted each line-up as it occured. I think it's very important that I mention I DID NOT need to adjust the viewing angle as I studied the orbit path and saw each mysterious line-up event cooincide with another 8.0+ Earthquake.


I want to quickly swing things in a different direction here regarding the mysterious orbit path of Elenin.

I did a lot of looking around to discover that this Java app has been in existance on the JPL website pre- the last couple of major earthquakes. What this means to me is either :

- This orbit path is the most cooincidental thing I have ever seen to the extent that I would doubt it is a cooincidense.

- A secret body is using the orbit path to cooincide with various experiments each time a line-up occurs.

Those are the only 2 probable reasons as to explain the mysterous monster earthquakes each time a line-up occurs. (Elenin - Sun - Earth) etc..

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at the data from Wikipedia

(and I know a lot of people will argue that nothing on wikipedia is factual as anyone can adjust it, but that to me means that if the information is not accurate then it will be adjusted again and again refining the data and hence is the most objective source I can think of)

It states that going back 6 or so years, the quantity of 5.0+ earthquakes that have occured has been increasing and that already for the year 2011, PRE-June, we had already experienced more earthquakes than were recorded for the entire year of 2003 (I think .. going off memory with that as I'm too tired to re hunt down all that data right now but know where to find it if someone wishes to debate those figures)

en.wikipedia.org... : This is the wikipedia page I am referencing to.

There are only 2 reasons why this would happen :

A - Technology for recording earthquakes has improved over that time period.

B - We have actually had more earthquakes happening each year.

Could be either of these but my logic is telling me, "How hard is it to detect 5.0+ earthquakes?"

See if those figures were for the total number of earthquakes experienced each year then .. perhaps.. we might be able to now detect sub 0.1+ earthquakes which would significantly jump up that quantity but it's hard to miss anything above a 5.0 right?


So basically a lot of the above logic draws me to believe that something is definitely going on based on information that I personally feel are reliable sources of data. Do I think that on the 27th September 2011 we will see another monster earthquake.. Probability tells me yes, hope tells me please no!! Instinct tells me that it's time to look for higher ground and hope that whatever lies ahead be it a man made devistating earthquake or whatever, come the next allignment and at that distance, based on previous line-ups etc, it's not going to be a pretty site.

Alternatively, I think about 1 month before that line-up happens as I've read others note, we should start experiencing a gradual increase in earthquake activity etc.. best case scenario, 27th september, nothing happens and I'll be glad I don't earn enough cash to have blown it on some wack-job survival kits that the entrepreneur's of this world will no doubt be having on sale for handsome profits. Worst case scenario I'm screwed cause yeah I just can't afford the privilege of throwing away my job and belongings on a hunch that is only currently supported by my (until now) unnanounced logic.

Originally posted by leunaM

"experiencing one long night that shields our side of the planet from the worst solar storms; while the southern hemisphere has one long day"

is this the day when the sun stands still?
like what someone from the bible commanded the sun to stand still (& the sun stood still)?

just asking...

I read that from the bible too and thought the same thing, however if I get this right, for the sun to not move at all (which was how it appeared that time stood still due to the usage of sun-dials) the entire Earth's crust would have had to remain fixed whilst the core continued to turn (or the entire universe (or at least our solar system) would have had to somehow orbit the Earth) either way it seems impossible to have been the result of a polar flip because..

As far as I know, if the earth's crust stopped turning with the core, everything on the surface would become heavier due to it not turning and being "spun/pushed towards space" against the earth's gravity.

Stop the force of push from happening and the pull of gravity would increase substantially thus, either crushing everything on the surface to pieces or certainly making it noteably heavier (impossible to move due to lack of muscle growth support) .. kinda like when space pilots come back to earth and they need to re-develop their muscles to adjust for earth's gravity vs 0 gravity but not quite that extreme of cause.

Also if another bright object were the cause of such a flip, it would have appeared at some point to be 2 sun's casting shadows down onto the sun dials .. but there is no mention of duel shadows which i would think be a pretty relevant piece of information to note down. (vs a lot of the seemingly less important informatin that IS in the bible like Exodus 12:4 "If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor" why does something like that deserve more of a mention than 2 Suns casting duel shadows?

doesn't add up to me.

I guess that particular incident you are referring to is just a cool miracle.. (would be interesting if someone could cite the actual timeline of when that event occured vs orbit of Elenin just to see if it were even ballpark around the same timeframe even. All I have are what I percieve would have happened to make that described event occur and how none of those things are recorded as happening. Hope this helps.

reply to post by JaxCavalera

I think we can all agree that NASA's Orbit path of Elenin is nothing short of a mystery.

There is nothing mysterious about it; it is a normal extremely long period comet.

I have personally used the Java app to track Elenin's orbit and carefully noted each line-up as it occured. I think it's very important that I mention I DID NOT need to adjust the viewing angle as I studied the orbit path and saw each mysterious line-up event cooincide with another 8.0+ Earthquake.

You need to read the user's manual first:

Warning: If you intend to use cometary orbital elements in a two-body propagation to compute future/past position (ephemerides), your results will be inaccurate and in some cases, completely incorrect. The motion of comets is affected by their so-called non-gravitational forces (the rocket-like force from outgassing of material from the comet while close to the sun). Thus, it is especially important to use HORIZONS to compute comet ephemerides.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

I want to quickly swing things in a different direction here regarding the mysterious orbit path of Elenin.

I did a lot of looking around to discover that this Java app has been in existance on the JPL website pre- the last couple of major earthquakes. What this means to me is either :

- This orbit path is the most cooincidental thing I have ever seen to the extent that I would doubt it is a cooincidense.

- A secret body is using the orbit path to cooincide with various experiments each time a line-up occurs.

Those are the only 2 probable reasons as to explain the mysterous monster earthquakes each time a line-up occurs. (Elenin - Sun - Earth) etc..

Neither conclusion follows. The "alignments" are not very exact, nor is there any correlation between them and the size of the quakes. Earthquakes of magnitude 6+ occur with a frequency that gives them a one in three chance of occurring on any given day, thus it is almost certain that a magnitude 6+ earthquake will occur within three days of any given event, whether it is a planetary "alignment" or a change in the price of milk at the local market. Here:

Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes

Magnitude Average Annually
8 and higher 1 ¹
7 - 7.9 15 ¹
6 - 6.9 134 ²
5 - 5.9 1319 ²
4 - 4.9 13,000
(estimated)
3 - 3.9 130,000
(estimated)
2 - 2.9 1,300,000
(estimated)
¹ Based on observations since 1900.
These numbers have been recently updated, based on data from the Centennial catalog (from 1900 to 1999) and the PDE (since 2000).
² Based on observations since 1990.

USGS

It states that going back 6 or so years, the quantity of 5.0+ earthquakes that have occured has been increasing and that already for the year 2011, PRE-June, we had already experienced more earthquakes than were recorded for the entire year of 2003 [Edit for brevity--DJW001]

There are only 2 reasons why this would happen :

A - Technology for recording earthquakes has improved over that time period.

B - We have actually had more earthquakes happening each year.

Could be either of these but my logic is telling me, "How hard is it to detect 5.0+ earthquakes?"

See if those figures were for the total number of earthquakes experienced each year then .. perhaps.. we might be able to now detect sub 0.1+ earthquakes which would significantly jump up that quantity but it's hard to miss anything above a 5.0 right?

Both are correct. Not only has the detection technology improved, there are now more earthquake sensors distributed over a greater area of the Earth's surface; in addition, communication between these distant points is now instantaneous. As recently as the 1950's, many large earthquakes went undetected, and it could take days for reports to be assembled.

reply to post by JaxCavalera

I read a few posts back that you can line up any 3 points in space by adjusting the viewing angle. This is 100 percent true. However, as to why someone felt that piece of information were important to mention for this particular topic is beyond my understanding.

To point out how easy it is to fake the alignments that have been claimed.

I have personally used the Java app to track Elenin's orbit and carefully noted each line-up as it occured. I think it's very important that I mention I DID NOT need to adjust the viewing angle as I studied the orbit path and saw each mysterious line-up event cooincide with another 8.0+ Earthquake.

Did you look down the "axis" formed by the objects to see if there was alignment. Did you actually look down the "line" to see if the points were lined up? I already know the answer. It is no.

Could be either of these but my logic is telling me, "How hard is it to detect 5.0+ earthquakes?"

There is a difference between detecting and locating a quake. Without locating a quake the magnitude of the quake is not known. As more compute power is being used to analyze the immense amount of seismic data more quakes are located and therefore the magnitudes of the quakes are known. Quakes outside of the US are often not analyzed unless they are reported. So a large quake in the Pacific may not be analyzed simply because there are many quakes and unless it is reported to the USGS it is not analyzed.

See if those figures were for the total number of earthquakes experienced each year then .. perhaps.. we might be able to now detect sub 0.1+ earthquakes which would significantly jump up that quantity but it's hard to miss anything above a 5.0 right?

Check with the USGS or other group. There are over 1 million quakes a year. Most are small. Also, remember that the energy of the few largest quakes each year exceeds the energy of the more than a million combined.

So basically a lot of the above logic draws me to believe that something is definitely going on based on information that I personally feel are reliable sources of data.

That isn't logic. That's speculation. You're making a lot or almost all assumptions that need to be checked.

Do I think that on the 27th September 2011 we will see another monster earthquake.. Probability tells me yes, hope tells me please no!!

This is not probability. This is still a hunch based on the flawed decision of when and where an alignment occurred.

reply to post by DJW001


Another thing to consider for everyone using the JPL orbit diagrams is scale. The objects are not even close to scale. For instance, in this view:



Each pixel is equal to about 1,000,000 km. The 4 pixel by 4 pixel dot for each planet covers a space of 16,000,000,000,000 square kilometers. Considering the Earth, projected onto that 2D plane, would only take up about 128,000,000 square kilometers, or 0.0008% of the indicated space, there is a very large margin for error in trying to determine the actual positions of the indicated objects.

That's why isn't important to use the orbital elements and find positions using astronomy software, like Celestia.

I'm all for logical debunking of my replies but please refrain from taking individual lines out of context. I am referring to it being a mystery (and if you read further down) due to the occurances of line-ups.

Yes I have checked allignment dates from all angles and they line-up no matter which way you look at it, I'm not so rash that I would forget to double check something that obvious before making such a post.

Object size: well the object sizes are irrelevant for a line-up in reference to the JPL Orbit Diagram. Why?

Each planet is marked from it's centre point in that orbit diagram. If the centre points line-up, regardless of size it is still a line-up.

I'm not sure why there was talk of scale being used in the diagram as all the dots are the exact same size?


I was not aware of the entire process required for recording earthquakes. Thank you for that information and I initially thought that yes, this makes sense that unless you have a device close to the location of each earthquake, you would not be able to accurately measure it's severity properly.

It then occured to me : I'd be surprised if over the last decade we didn't already know of every single earthquake happening on our planet. We may not have had the most accurate measurements on them but surely you could just adjust the strength of the quake to the distance the shockwave is felt at the point where it is being recorded and then adjust to compensate from these things... even a ballpark distance will let you know if the quakes were above 5.0 to 8.0 right?

I'm not talking about specific quake figures but a general quantity of 5.0+ quake comparrisons per year. that increase figure wouldn't be out by several hundred per year now would it? technology in recording earthquakes hasn't been that bad back in 2003 up till now right or am I wrong to assume this?

reply to post by JaxCavalera

I'm all for logical debunking of my replies ut please refrain from taking individual lines out of context. I am referring to it being a mystery (and if you read further down) due to the occurances of line-ups.

Yes I have checked allignment dates from all angles and they line-up no matter which way you look at it, I'm not dumb enough to forget to double check something that obvious before making such a post.

There are specific problems with your posts that need to be addressed and the best way is to point out where those mistakes are.

The alignments are rather poor alignments. If you look at the alignments with even a little care it is obvious that the dates of the quakes are NOT when the so-called alignment occurs.

Each planet is marked from it's centre point in that orbit diagram. If the centre points line-up, regardless of size it is still a line-up.

It's rather clear that the centers of the objects never line up. That is easily seen in the viewer.

I'm not sure why there was talk of scale being used in the diagram as all the dots are the exact same size?

Hmmm. None of the objects are the same size and the pixelation error is greater than the size of the objects in question.

unless you have a device close to the location of each earthquake, you would not be able to accurately measure it's severity properly.

That isn't a requirement. Even a station "close" to the surface position above the quake is still a good distance away from the origin of the quake. What can make a quake hard to understand is intervening geological features that can affect the propagation of the waves that are analyzed.

It then occured to me : I'd be surprised if over the last decade we didn't already know of every single earthquake happening on our planet. We may not have had the most accurate measurements on them but surely you could just adjust the strength of the quake to the distance the shockwave is felt at the point where it is being recorded and then adjust to compensate from these things... even a ballpark distance will let you know if the quakes were above 5.0 to 8.0 right?

Clearly you're quessing. Instead learn how seismic evidence is analyzed. There are an estimate 1.2 or 1.3 million quakes a year. We don't really know how many quakes let alone their intensities.

I'm not talking about specific quake figures but a general quantity of 5.0+ quake comparrisons per year. that increase figure wouldn't be out by several hundred per year now would it? technology in recording earthquakes hasn't been that bad back in 2003 up till now right or am I wrong to assume this?

Again more speculation. You might want to take the time to understand the limitations. Remember that a quake's origin is often well below the surface of the Earth. They can be done 100 miles at times. The Bolivian quake of 1994 was down 630km, some 360 miles. That was an 8+.

I never stated that my most recent post was anything more than speculation so why is that being pointed out as if I were claiming it was fact ( all in reference to the earthquake monitoring portion of the post of cause

As for the line-ups I guess we must be looking at 2 different orbit diagrams because when I see them, I see line-ups perfect each time.

Also, if there were a delay of the strongest line-up point (perfect line-up) and I'm not saying that I didn't see what appears to be perfect line-ups on my monitor, but if there were. It is still possible that the time it took for whatever it is that is causing the cooincidental (or perhaps not so cooincidental) earthquakes to occur might take a bit of time before we feel it's effects.

I don't think that's a hard to believe speculation is it?

I don't know what or if any force is effecting earth but if it were a graitional pull/push of sorts.. it is entirely possible that you would see a delay between when it happens and when we feel it's effects.

an asteroid's debris is pulled behind it due to it's gravity right?

Originally posted by JaxCavalera
Object size: well the object sizes are irrelevant for a line-up in reference to the JPL Orbit Diagram. Why?

Each planet is marked from it's centre point in that orbit diagram. If the centre points line-up, regardless of size it is still a line-up.

The plotted 4x4 pixel blocks are can't be exactly centered on the actual location of the object at all times. With each pixel representing a distance of 1,000,000 km, the center of the object would have to move 1,000,000 km left or right for the 4x4 pixel block to get nudged over left or right.

This is born out in the actual "alignment" times:

At 06:34:14 UTC on February 27, 2010, the time of the 8.8 Chile earthquake, the Earth and Elenin were separated by about 1° 04' 07" viewed from the sun. Elenin was actually most closely aligned with the Earth at only 0° 25' 21" of separation, at 05:20 UTC on February 26. 2010, or 1 day, 6 hours, and 14 minutes earlier.

At 16:35:46 UTC on September 03, 2010, the time of the 7.0 Christchurch earthquake, the Sun and Elenin were separated by about 1° 16' 38" viewed from Earth. Elenin was actually most closely aligned with the sun at only 0° 30' 22" at 04:35 UTC on September 05, 2010, or 1 day, 11 hours, and 59 minutes later.

At 05:46:23 UTC on March 11, 2011, the time of the 9.1 Japan earthquake, the Earth and Elenin were separated by about 3° 00' 00" viewed from the sun. Elenin was actually most closely aligned with the Earth at at only 0° 54' 21" at 13:00 UTC on March 14, 2011, or 3 days, 7 hours, and 14 minutes later.

Very interesting informatoin there.

That sounds like either the delay concept is at work (which well can or can't be accurately debated due to lack of factual evidense) OR depending on the resolution that the diagram is viewed at as to the number of pixels each "DOT" would be and thus the accuracy of each dot. but I can see how it's not th emost accurate means to measure things with as pixels aren't exactly vector lines.

I still can't 100 percent agree with this new information though untill i further look into it on a higher resolution with a much larger monitor (my 42" TV) this should allow me to get a much closer perspective on the situation. Will reply back with my findings when I get time to do so (after I finish work etc)

reply to post by JaxCavalera

As for the line-ups I guess we must be looking at 2 different orbit diagrams because when I see them, I see line-ups perfect each time.

I used the JPL site listed earlier and it is very clear that the alignments are not alignments and in fact these so-called alignments are better on days other than the quake days.

I'll bet you used a birds-eye viewpoint and make an ocular decision. Try looking along the axis of the supposed alignment and then, without looking at the date, get the best alignment. It won't be on the quake days.

Also, if there were a delay of the strongest line-up point (perfect line-up) and I'm not saying that I didn't see what appears to be perfect line-ups on my monitor, but if there were. It is still possible that the time it took for whatever it is that is causing the cooincidental (or perhaps not so cooincidental) earthquakes to occur might take a bit of time before we feel it's effects.

Yet another unwarranted speculation to cover up for the failings of these claims.

I don't think that's a hard to believe speculation is it?

So when the basic idea is shown to be a failure you plan on using string, gum, and tacks to try and keep this notion together?

I don't know what or if any force is effecting earth but if it were a graitional pull/push of sorts.. it is entirely possible that you would see a delay between when it happens and when we feel it's effects.

Gravity is only a pull. Why should there be a delay?

an asteroid's debris is pulled behind it due to it's gravity right?

A mass exhibits a force called gravity. An asteroid has mass and therefore gravity. So does the debris. They are attracted to each other and all of the other masses that exist.

reply to post by JaxCavalera

That sounds like either the delay concept is at work (which well can or can't be accurately debated due to lack of factual evidense) OR depending on the resolution that the diagram is viewed at as to the number of pixels each "DOT" would be and thus the accuracy of each dot. but I can see how it's not th emost accurate means to measure things with as pixels aren't exactly vector lines.

The limited resolution of a monitor reduces any visualization to 3 digits of accuracy or less. That is the nature of the screen. In this case the resolution might be less than 2 digits.

As far as this delay at work can you show us any other cases in which gravity decides to delay? With a mag 6 quake being on average ever 3 days and this supposed alignment quakes being off up to 3+ days, don't you see the con here? The con is to mangle the data to fit a preconceived notion.

I still can't 100 percent agree with this new information though untill i further look into it on a higher resolution with a much larger monitor (my 42" TV) this should allow me to get a much closer perspective on the situation. Will reply back with my findings when I get time to do so (after I finish work etc)

The size of the monitor changes nothing. The pixel ratio still applies.

nataylor has shown calculated values that these closest alignments are days off from the quake dates. I saw this same issue even with the roughness of the JPL online plots. You did claim that "I see line-ups perfect each time. " This is not correct. I could see it in the plots and nataylor has calculated it.

The way you describe my adjustments of my conceptualised theory regarding the comet's movements and allignments etc paints the picture of someone scrambling trying to save face.

If you had understood my initial reply post, you would realise that this is not the situation. I am not interested in saving face, this is a working growing adjusting theory and I am passing out various concepts to test their validity against the logic possessed by others active in this topic.

The picture you paint is one where you would only accept a black and white outcome.

No I'm not going to take up your concepts without a fight (which to me is comparing them to my own experiences and testing them to make sure they do add up) ALSO

NO i'm not going to try and "patch" holes in a flawed theory, I will adjust it and see if there is a working counter argument that still dissputes it .

I think that's a decent way to conduct one's self - adjusting and adapting based on findings right or wrong?

reply to post by JaxCavalera

this is a working growing adjusting theory and I am passing out various concepts to test their validity against the logic possessed by others active in this topic.

These so-called alignments have been tested and seen to be incorrect. The quakes did not happen when there were alignments.

It is known that the only celestial body associated with quakes is the moon and only with a few rare types of quakes that low intensity.

The idea of alignments and quakes is old. It has been shown to not work except with the Moon and even then the correlation is not that strong and only with low intensity quakes.

I think that's a decent way to conduct one's self - adjusting and adapting based on findings right or wrong?

What can be seen up front is that the claims of quakes and Elenin alignments is wrong. The data was checked and found to be incorrect.

I'll still double check this again for myself but am feeling a lot more at peace that this is just a cooincidense that it comes close in orbit etc even hopefully all is well regarding this situation if what you claim turns out to be acurate.

Well did the tests and great news It actually isn't a perfect line-up on my bigger tv so there you go an improved resolution broubht about a much more accurate line-up or lack there-of. I think I feel a heck of a lot safer about this one now .. I mean sure, there is a slim VERY slim chance it could be a pre-shock as the actual allignment took place but I really doubt it.

Thanks for the info and feedback.

Well did the tests and great news It actually isn't a perfect line-up on my bigger tv so there you go an improved resolution broubht about a much more accurate line-up or lack there-of. I think I feel a heck of a lot safer about this one now .. I mean sure, there is a slim VERY slim chance it could be a pre-shock as the actual allignment took place but I really doubt it.

Thanks for the info and feedback.

It wasn't even close to a line up on a low res screen.

If you watch a carpenter check a board for straightness they do not stand over the board and look. They hold up the board and look down the length of it to see if the board is straight or not. The same was simple to do here. Simply turn the view into the ecliptic or close to that and see if the objects line up. They do not line up.

Now change the time to see what range of dates gives the same approximate line up. That range of dates is the window of time. I noticed that the line up was worse on the day of the quake than at other nearby times.

Once you have the window you can look to see how often Earthquakes occur and it turns out that the a 1 week window is likely to have a 6 or better quake.

that is all true but it's still odd how this comet does come close and each time it comes close to a line-up there is a significant quake .. even if it's not related to that comet it's interesting to note. i mean as u say in any given 1 week window you willl see a 6.0 quake appear but we're talking a 8.0+ quake here which is a big difference.. stands out of the average etc.. in any random week i guarantee you wuldn't see a 8.0 + quake except it seems that they have appeared when something close to a line-up has happened with that comet ..

not drawing a direct relationship here of cause as we both agree no line-up happens on the ctual date of the quakes.

as for high res to low res you surely can concede that resolution alters the number of pixels per inch thus increasing the accuracy of viewable content