Comet C/2012 S1 ISON is Nibiru the great perturber.

OP -- well done in your assertions. I agree the "Comet" is much more than your average comet, and thank you for the images of the surrounding moons. Couple this with the ME TEL U thread, and we have some interesting times ahead.

The thread would be better (as most would be) if it would not degenerate into scientific drivel and argument with "Dr." Astro. He does this to all threads and it really takes away from the content, which, I am sure he knows and does on purpose.

Having said that, perhaps we could just ignore him? There is no need to answer his questions or even acknowledge him for that matter. It would improve the thread immensely.

That's why I didn't quote you: it was getting so long that I did not see your example. Io is not a valid example, as it is always an inferno, I'm talking about "from heaven to hell".

The big thing to realize on Io would be the contrary: to Io turns from Inferno to Heaven.

So how would you explain Mars getting blue, yellow, green, marble brown or gray one week after this comet passage if it is not a big one?

Yes, you did. You know I can't do that but you don't care, you want my blood.

No this is a bet to see if the comet is large or not.

What matter is that I should be able to check if your data is correct or not.

Would not you take a picture by yourself from Jupiter if NASA says that it begun to light like a star?

Could do, but can't guarantee, so I can't bet.

Man, this is not America, this is Brazil.

You say that is not important to check if the other guy really won the bet? I don't think so!

Don't try to turn the game.

Depends on. Will you ignore if Mars get Olympus and other volcanos going off, turns its atmosphere to blue, yellow, green, marble brown or gray one week after this comet passage?

Thanks for responding back. So sounds like it will be visible in November? I heard that NASA said it will be as bright as the moon? I guess by arrive I meant closest to Earth. I'm not very knowledgable about this area, I am an engineer though, so I have a science and math background.

Zetas were so 2003.... In any event that is not Nibiru. Why? Because you can't fathom what you are about to see. Planet X, nemisis, nibiru, or whatever you want to call it will not be seen. Why? Because its cold as death itself. Black as night. I assure u it's coming, not in that form. The comets that come are pretty much getting the fuck out of its way. Don't believe me? You will soon.

What matter is that I should be able to check if your data is correct or not. Would not you take a picture by yourself from Jupiter if NASA says that it begun to light like a star?

I'd like a non-retard take on this.

Dr. Astro?

Being unable to verify someone's claim based on empirical data simply because you lack the ability to produce your own data does not invalidate the claim. It only proves that you are not qualified to converse on this topic.

Dr. Astro conducting an experiment which you lack the ability to verify is not bad science; there are MANY other people who can validate or challenge his conclusions.

Whining about not being capable of replicating his experiment and trying to get him to work at your limited level is bad science.

To go back to your race example; you've challenged him to a race. He's showing up with a Ferrari and you're whining that its not fair that his tools are better suited to complete the race than yours are.

Why does anybody trust anybody who trusts the government ?

Speaking of course about Dr.PHD.Astro who also believes the governments story of 911.

If I'm wrong about your belief on 911 Dr.Astro I apologize in advance.

What is OP?

Why is this so important if Professor McCanney DOES NOT uses this title? The problem here is me or Professor?

Alright, give me an example of one prediction that Professor made that was wrong.

Yes, even people that can't read can recognize the true between the lines. This don't disregards universities nor science.

Isn't that journals I sent to you peer reviewed??

Alright, so where is the ice of the comets? Bring the data if you can.

Because I'm too smart to do so.

Sure their orbit had not changed, these flybys occurred in small comets with no gravitational force.

What church?

I know you like flowers.

Yes, Phil must present evidences that McCanney said that "All comets are large" and that "All comets gain mass". Professor never said that, but Phil likes to lie.

What Hawking did so important? He is a theorist, almost all of his ideas are yet to be confirmed.

You claim that no scientists in the world agree with McCanney, but I never said the oposite simple because I don't know.

I understand, but some speculations are very evidencies of the truth!

Maybe, only if the current projections of its magnitude hold true. At the moment the comet is under-performing expectations and may not reach the magnitudes originally anticipated.

Here's the obscure amateur image I've managed to find of Comet C/2012 S1 ISON taken in January 2013 for all the ADD/Demonic/Chaotic types so they don't have to read anything more than a few words and can quickly right it off with BS flags and make inane comments about Uranus.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

I feel like the stripper who puts her jinger back on and walks down in to the audience to have a drink with the boys. Here's the back ground.

After the CometC/2010 X1 Elenin fizzle out last year, I lost interest in the whole PX/Nibiru/Red Dragon meme, which in hindsight we were all supposed via the to do as a result of the disinformation sown about the subject over the years, since the NASA psy-op Zetatalkby Nancy Leider brought it to prominence in the early years of 2000.

Zetatalks credibility was blown out of the water with the claim it would be seen on the 15 May 2003. When it didn't show up the Zetas confessed that date was a white lie just to get the subject in front of the public early. Just days ago Nancy then pops up claiming Zetatalk is the only authority to consider when looking for Planet X Earth Change information. Are we being set up for another round of disinformation.

A few days into the new year I became aware of a subtle energy change I found myself saying to the casual acquaintance who would quiz me about the latest doom news, "Not long to go now before the big Earth changes!" that was after the end of the Mayan Calendar came and went (another psy-op) I had no additional information yet something in me was confident the big changes were just around the proverbial corner.

I religiously check Space Weather's near Earth Object reports and noticed an influx of new asteroids all discovered in the new year. I threaded it on LOP and got a bit of interest.

Then the Pope resigned followed quickly by the Russian Meteorite and I was off the spidey senses were tingling.
I combed the news releases about the ISS and comets noticed the articles about the three for this year,

Comet Pan-STARRS (C/2011 L4)
Comet Lemmon (C/2012 F6)
Comet ISON (C/2012 S1)

Saw the official images which were just highly magnified images of feeble looking light smudges against the sea of streaked stars. Comet Lemmon was the brightest and best formed its luminescent blue/green colour I decided makes it a great candidate for the blue Kachina of the Hopi prophecy.
I checked the orbit diagrams noted none were coming from under the elliptic as we have been programmed to believe about PX. Why else were they racing to build infrared telescopes in Antarctica I reasoned. Comet C/2012 S1 ISON was coming from the opposite direction above the elliptic. So I moved on to other areas of Earth monitoring.

I picked up on a rumour started by a major Electric Universe Scientist that he was hearing chatter about an incoming mini solar system type object spotted just outside Jupiter's orbit. I remembered reading one of the comets had been discovered just outside the orbit of Jupiter.

I Combed the alternate space weather sites again but could find nothing. Then articles appeared about C/2012 S1 ISON could be a candidate for a major spectacle as its orbit was following that of the Great Comet of1680. No sooner had that article appeared then another one came out disputing that saying Comet displays are highly unpredictable and listing all the comets that were hyped up but fizzled out.

This piece of cognitive dissonance annoyed me. I had read C/2012 S1 ISON's core was a big as a mountain at least twice as big as Comet Lovejoy and hadn't started out gassing yet. It's orbit would start above the elliptic lit up by the Sun and it would swing close by Mars in plain view from the Earth before dipping below the elliptic at around 1 AU from the Sun (Great View from Antarctica) rip around the Sun's South Pole inside the orbit of Mercury before screaming out of the solar system from the Sun up and out above Earths North Pole in high arc. If that wasn't going to look pretty neat I don't know what was.

It then occurred to me they don't want us looking at it. Comb the internet again, despite all the high profile, main stream telescopes out there as usual we have to rely on the amateurs for any images. Like our tax money pays for these big toys and we have to wait years to get images that have been purged of any anomalies likely to dispute the Newtonian Physics world view.

Trying to find the mass of any comet is a difficult thing, for years now that information is classified like they don't want us know how big are these things that are increasingly blasting though our solar system.

They don't need to know the mass to calculate an orbit. Remember the old school physics video when they drop a wooden ball and a iron ball of a tower and see which on hits first. They both hit at the same time its Newtons Law the force of gravity is a constant.

They use observations to plot the objects movement and extrapolate the orbit based on Keplers laws which predict freely falling Solar bodies move in a conic orbit with the Sun at one of the foci that sweeps equal areas in equal time periods according to a known constant.

None of the Ephemerides of the Near Earth Objects have a value for mass. They calculate mass using other methods active and passive to measure density, so arriving at an estimated value.

Pulling up obscure academic PDF articles which is about as exciting as reading a reserve bank annual report. The authors report little evidence of cometary activity. ( No Out Gassing) blah jargon blah, meaningless graphs, obligatory comment dirty snowball blah blah..Then I came across this image buried in the document.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

First impression its spherical, icy objects need to be over 400 km in diameter to reach hydrostatic equilibrium with gravity and take on a spherical shape. That's a big mountain!

Then I notice the angular diameter scale in arc seconds. C/2012 S1 is 15 arc seconds wide! That's 50,000 kilometres at 5.22 AU distance from the Sun. Jupiter at the same distance is 30 arc seconds the same width as the scale line. Its half the size of Jupiter! The Earth's average diameter is 12,742 kilometres so its four times as big as the Earth!

I rush off looking up astronomy tables to compare the sizes. Then come back for a third look at the image and do my second double take of the evening I can make out the companion moons right beside it!

Here's some later images with internal processed images and one I jacked up the red hue saturation to reveal the cold detail.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

Moving the goalposts. I can see it's why you didn't quote me though. Heaven forbid you should have to address it and show your intellectual dishonesty again.

If you removed Jupiter from the equation Io would go dormant. Moons further from Jupiter are examples of less activity, though you couldn't call them dead either.

Moving the goalposts. If you don't care that Io is a moon, and you have indicated that is not your problem with it, then your goalpost has been met. Now answer my question as you agreed to.

Considering you and your self-admitted layman knowledge, it will most likely be a case of chromatic aberration or poor white balance.

Whatever the case it will be irrelevant and have nothing to do with the mass of the comet which I will show is not at all like what McCanney claimed it was.

The question is whether you will ignore that empirical data or not. Yes or no?

No, I did not say that.

I don't care that you're incapable of doing the measurements yourself because that is your problem and has nothing to do with the real issue.

Your vile statement that you falsely (lie) attributed to me had nothing to do with what I've been saying.

It is not a bet.

I did not ask you to wager anything,

I only asked a simple question, will you ignore empirical evidence showing that the mass of the comet is not what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?

You can, there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so.

You can recheck my calculations if you like, even acquire your own data to recheck the results, that is up to you.

Another irrelevant question, but yes of course I would take a picture of Jupiter if NASA said it began to shine like a star, I take pictures of Jupiter all the time anyway.

You still don't get it. This is not a bet or a competition. I did not ask you to wager anything, I only asked a simple question, will you ignore empirical evidence showing that the mass of the comet is not what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?

Irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that services like itelescope.net are not banned in Brazil.

It's not a goddamn bet, it's a question of whether you will ignore the empirical data or not. If you want to check my calculations you're absolutely free to do so. Nothing is preventing you. Your ignorance is not a valid excuse. Answer the question.

You're the one putting words in my mouth. It's not a competition, bet, or game, it's just a question. Answer it.

I wouldn't "ignore" that if it actually happened, it would be an exciting time to study Mars, but I fully expect you to claim it happened even though it didn't,

and such an event happening would not be proof of ISON's mass.

I will demonstrate that ISON's mass is not what McCanney claimed and the way to do that is by looking at what effect it does or doesn't have on Mars' orbit.

Will you ignore that empirical evidence which IS a test of ISON's mass (unlike your other nonsense about the color of mars), yes or no?

Being unable to verify someone's claim based on empirical data simply because you lack the ability to produce your own data does not invalidate the claim. It only proves that you are not qualified to converse on this topic.

Dr. Astro conducting an experiment which you lack the ability to verify is not bad science; there are MANY other people who can validate or challenge his conclusions.

Whining about not being capable of replicating his experiment and trying to get him to work at your limited level is bad science.

To go back to your race example; you've challenged him to a race. He's showing up with a Ferrari and you're whining that its not fair that his tools are better suited to complete the race than yours are.

Why is this so important if Professor McCanney DOES NOT uses this title? The problem here is me or Professor?

He was offered full scholarship awards to three major US physics graduate schools to pursue his graduate physics studies. However, he chose instead to postpone

He was again offered a full fellowship to continue on with Ph.D. studies, but once again he declined

In 1979 he joined the faculty of Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y. as an introductory instructor in physics.

Mr. McCanney was removed from his teaching position because of his beliefs regarding the electro-dynamic nature of the solar system.

OP -- well done in your assertions. I agree the "Comet" is much more than your average comet, and thank you for the images of the surrounding moons. Couple this with the ME TEL U thread, and we have some interesting times ahead.

The thread would be better (as most would be) if it would not degenerate into scientific drivel and argument with "Dr." Astro. He does this to all threads and it really takes away from the content, which, I am sure he knows and does on purpose.

Having said that, perhaps we could just ignore him? There is no need to answer his questions or even acknowledge him for that matter. It would improve the thread immensely.

I agree. Astro completely fucking DESTROYS threads. Some people thought they reached enlightenment when science got popular. Some realized it was just another form of bullshit. I love how astro is able to completely debunk things I have literally witnessed, but based on his calculations (Probably on a spread sheet he made) will render your opinion false, also jupiter's orbit correct, and the moon's tilt unchanged. It never fails. Bet? Post a moon tilt thread, astro will be there within 30 minutes.
Won't leave til you agree or everyone leaves cause it's derailed. In the argument he will back up his beliefs with many NASA images, which anyone on a conspiracy site would not even think to do. Astroshill is one of the biggest problems on this website because he is endorsed by those that own it, otherwise he would not be here, as his bullshit is clearly see through to those that have their eyes open.

Mr J Mccanney is NOT a professor.
Let me show you some of his bio, written for his book 'The Weather Book', taken from HIS website.

...













Where did he get his title of Professor from ?

I have a pain between my ears from reading five pages of arguments, I will research this by myself, for myself- won't inflict it on anyone! LOL

Professor - A scholarly teacher.

Do I need to direct you to the line in your post where you cite McCanney as a teacher with a PHD (A scholarly teacher)? Or can we agree you were wrong here.