Latest Deep Space Probe Discovery Substantiates Astounding Theori...

Rense story finally links with source pages to remedy plariarisms:

Headlines:

[link to www.rense.com]

I saw this posting of the Discoverer Matt's ( Matthew Perkins Erwin ) on the Bad Astronomy (attempted debunking) site and it may still be up... explaining WHY the Scientists are not allowed to be on board yet... Turns out the Scientists are not permitted by protocol not say it was right yet even if they wanted to...

[MATT]

[snip]


As to the topic at hand--

Your argument is jumping to what are simply "too simplistic a set of conclusions..."

A number of those watching on the sidelines here know better...

..that there has got to be a whole lot more to the story and they are simply and wisely holding out to see how this pans out before jumping to a conclusion to sweep this under the rug... with so many plain as the nose on your face proofs already out of the bag.

We forget that this is the real world of status quo and competition, degrees, hoops, rights of passage peer review, and tenured clubs etc. and people who have earned such degrees and positionings.

IMO 'Bad astronomy' was simply brought in as the hatchet man to try to see if he could be used to easily be rid of the independent and his so called "new discoveries" without the asker having to spend time and effort looking into the matter, actually having to get all involved at no net gain to himself as already the lead scientist.

It is important to note that:

An astrophysicist is not usually seen to make comments one way or the other unless as a published peer reviewed article and that is in relation only to discoveries that are on the mainstream radar or placed there newly by those of the mainstream club.

He works under funding and there are very specific status quo constraints on such in his profession. He is not a self employed independent by any means.

Could it be-- that he could not bring himself to break those status quo rules because he sees no reason to on the face of it without actually looking into it or the supporting substantiation discoveries yet...?

Even if he did look into it, would he not be just having to reduce his own standing in the limelight as already one of the lead authors in the study, and would not either get new money or new credit for any aspect of the new discoveries and in effect become a 'has been', and that to an untenured, un-degreed upstart in his eyes... regardless of the discovery. Matt is not in the club?

What incentive is there for this lead scientist of the 2003 study to have to take a lessor status or positioning..?

If he is at all aware of what the precursor discoveries mean for astrophysics... that is... how in-and-of themselves these will be laying to waste much of the current relevant science,
Is he possibly deciding he is simply not going to be the one who helps usher in the shakeup overnight and unseat he and all his colleagues from their well tenured well earned status, power and authority in their positions?

Time will of course tell...

The arguments made by the new discoveries are in and of themselves so new that neither the lead scientist you refer to or this-- the bad astronomy site had actual knowledge of them... or even had a proper chance to fully and scientifically do the methodical study as to what they may mean to the science they focus on yet...

...and they made no effort to contact me at the openly published email for any explanation at any time.

Because you are actually looking to specific individuals not having had a chance to become abreast of the documentation at hand and a chance to properly study all the angles-- having to be giving an instant authoritative say in these matters-- this should be an all important factor for you?

This is the updated copy of a side note on Matt's blog page:

__________________________________________________________​____

-- SPECIAL SIDE NOTE --
Such information has proven both so extraordinary and so completely new that coupled with 3 theories potentially now turned discoveries [SEE BELOW] an entirely new set of conclusions may possibly be in order. Notwithstanding, no completely definitive official mainstream science announcement is projected to be forthcoming from the mainstream science community yet as a whole for some time involving the foregoing discoveries listed below. As a matter of course, individual scientists do not make definitive statements without published peer review so that the highest degree of accuracy is maintained. This very release is available to you to read in advance today because a researcher/ discoverer found outside of the standard peer review publishing avenue for a given discipline automatically defers directly to the internet as the stage to launch the actual peer review process. As such it is still subject to much controversy until such time as the multiple teams of scientists across the globe have had opportunity to properly weigh the data and full implications of what it all in fact means. No pronouncements either for, or against this body of work by any one individual at any positioning are therefore considered as definitive until such time.
__________________________________________________________​____

[link to curezone.com]

I truly wish you all the best and also to be found in the ideal positioning personally-- as these discoveries-- all of them-- change the face of Science as we know it.

NOTE: I Matthew Perkins Erwin published my blog-- and my blog only. The Viewzone article ( though informative ) was lifted without my consent or counsel ( in maintaining exact source quote accuracy ) and spliced with what I had worked hard on as book material for almost a year, with the U. of Va. quotes.



Sincerely,

Matthew Perkins Erwin


.
This explains WHY the Scientists are not allowed to be on board with the new discoveries yet...

Matthew Perkins Erwin's Blog is source-accurate, and the discoveries are plain as the nose on your face obvious (see pics and maps).

This does explain WHY the Scientists are not allowed to be on board with the new discoveries yet...

.

Could some astronomy wiz help with this question.

After reading the articles and thinking about the right-hand turn maneuver of our system, it would seem from looking at the infrared image that we are currently above the ecliptic of the Milky Way headed downward through its plane with the sun laying on its side and the left side of the monitor being our suns north.

That being said, it would explain why we can discover planets using occulting methods around other suns because we are finally entering the ecliptic of the Milky Way where most things should orient themselves to the plane.

So, the question: Shouldn't there be a void of planet discoveries in the direction we're headed since we are at nearly 90 degrees to their ecliptic and therefore any existing planets should never occult the star from our point of view? There should also be a void of discovered planets in our solar systems wake since we are also at nearly 90 degrees with these.

Thanks for any thoughts on this and thanks to the op for an interesting post.

Could some astronomy wiz help with this question.

So, the question: Shouldn't there be a void of planet discoveries in the direction we're headed since we are at nearly 90 degrees to their ecliptic and therefore any existing planets should never occult the star from our point of view? There should also be a void of discovered planets in our solar systems wake since we are also at nearly 90 degrees with these.

Thanks for any thoughts on this and thanks to the op for an interesting post.

Bump: