Replies

Notes I've been making:

But personally from my observations and what I know from days past...it WONT MISS...that is....the fragments wont miss.

Claims to have made "observations".

I wonder if this may have something to do with all the "stories" and such about nibiru and other similar stuff??

I thought so. Nibiru mentioned by an "astronomer"? Not likely. I think I'm the only "real" astronomer (and remember I'm just an AMATEUR) that ever mentions it, and that's because I follow these conspiracies daily. By the way, in MY observations, I've never discovered a "new" planet. Nor a comet. Nor an asteroid. Leastwise not that I know of.

Something to ponder. And by the way....don’t go expecting me to give technical details and other rubbish like that.

Asking for "technical details" is only "rubbish" when you do not have any such details to give. I've given a few "technical details" in this forum already, which are easily available to anyone who wants to look for them. I've merely taken a few minutes to do some quick research. When people start pooh-poohing FACTS as "rubbish", they ARE obfuscating the truth already.

I am only talking to astronomers and scientists here. THEY can look and thus confirm what I am saying.

Really? ONLY astronomers and scientists. None of them are posting stories, and white papers on this phenomenon as of yet. They probably could confirm (or deny) this thing easily though, assuming they were AWARE of it.

25 years ago we wondered what to tell people about the approaching debris cloud...among other things....and we just could not answer the question. Who knows...perhaps we were wrong on our calculations...but personally I pray we are NOT.

As I stated in a previous post, this is a lot of malarky. If he were a real scientist, he would have at least looked up in 1979 where the Crab Nebula was, and figured out that if a "debris cloud" was headed out way, it won't hit for millions of years.

It took LIGHT 6300 years to get to Earth as it was.

I would rather the world was woken up by a natural disaster than a nuclear one....at least you can rebuild after meteors...but you cannot rebuild after radiation...at least not for a long long time.

YAAANK (Yet Another Aussie Anti-Nuke Kook)

OK then.....got some stuff stirred up. I thought that bit about the crab nebula would get the debunkers to identify themselves. It worked well. Just goes to show you how easily people are led in one direction or another. Serious astronomers know which debris cloud I am talking about and now I know we have some here.

I am not sure where this original conversation took place. I haven't checked into our own Anomalies web sites lately, perhaps it took place on Anomalies? I better go look. Point here though is that someone questioned him on the Crab Nebula. They CAUGHT him in a lie and he "fended" off their questions with a discrediting "glance" their way with the comment "serious astronomers" etc. So, he got caught and tried to cover it up.

That aside I have decided that due to all the bull I am receiving just because I am not getting technical enough I will NOT give anyone the satisfaction of KNOWING FOR SURE.....YET. I have waited for over two decades for this time...and its HERE boys and girls. I really don't care if you think I am legit.

Ah, the last refuge of the guy-caught-in-lies. Deny any more information. Always used as "punishment" when someone has figured out that "they" are onto them. AS to the sun getting dark...THIS will be due to the thick dust cloud approaching. You wont see it yet because most scopes WONT see BLACK.

Some basis in fact here. Indeed, the sun travels in an orbit around the center of the galaxy. There are "arms" of galactic dust out there, and we're currently traveling through what we call "the Orion Arm" (if I remember correctly). Or just entering it or something. As we move through it, the skies will be obscured with dust for a few thousand years, but not so much we can't see anything out there. Just generally "more dust". Kind of like a galatic dust storm. However, it won't be completely dark. WHY don't you show us how intelligent YOU are and PROVE ME WRONG...I DARE YOU!!!

One more comment on this. "Prove me wrong, I dare you" is a very typical response in these sorts of arguments in the "Anomalies Community". Here's why, MOST people understand that it is much easier to prove something IS, than it is to prove it ISN'T. In other words, if you wanted to prove something IS, you simply have to show evidence for it to be what it IS. If you wanted to show it ISN'T, well, it's kind of like asking one of my security computers to tell me how many times someone HAS NOT gone through a door. I can certainly tell you how many times they HAVE gone through it, but the computer can comprehend that a door has opened and closed because someone has entered the right codes. If nothing at all happens, how can it tell you how many times the person DID NOT go through the door? Do you follow? Any "scientist" worth his salt has probably had to defend a paper or two, and has had to show EVIDENCE For something, rather than telling a peer review board "Well, prove I'm WRONG!". What nonsense.

Here is a site that has "decoded" the code in the next part of the message: http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=2685

I can't say I necessarily AGREE with it, and of course the one part *I* want to see someone decode was left alone "as clear enough for you to understand". It was,

: MDC:-DIA=1.43..AU VEL as follows:-0.000234 LS

: The above is clear enough for you to work out.

I can say what I THINK they want you to THINK, but I won't. I will say if it is what I THINK they want us to THINK, it's wrong. lol.

Found the site of the postings, if anyone wants to read them live, though, this isn't the actual original posting site for Aussie Bloke: http://forum.dreamexpedition.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=195&PN=1&TPN=3

Slight update from something I posted to TXMOM earlier. The Itokawa asteroid is NOT "eccentric" as I thought, and it DOES cross the Earth's orbit. This site gives you the Itokawa asteroid that was asked about earlier, and a plot to show it's approch. It is a java site, so you might have to check some browser settings. I have made an image of the closest approach, but am not in a position to post it at the moment. You can all look at it for yourselves. The closest approach will take place about the 27th of June 2004

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=25143+Itokawa

According to MY calculations, it ain't gonna hit us. (Itokawa), but it comes damned close: 2004-Jun-26 04:00 Am 06 40 07.47 -47 28 08.9 255399.1/* n.a. 1.0123431478 5.15874 0.0131422013 -0.89441 70.9442 /T 0.7025 19.5959484 2.68075E-6

2004-Jun-26 05:00 m 06 38 29.61 -48 00 23.0 257239.1/* n.a. 1.0124674288 5.16315 0.0131208570 -0.88147 71.4553 /T 0.7035 19.5943770 2.60623E-6

Those numbers probably don't mean much to anyone (they barely mean anything to me!) but essentially, they are two lines from something called an ephemeris that I ran through a computer calculation, hour by hour, from 2 June, through 30 June. Those are two lines showing the closest approach of Itokawa. It doesn't hit us, according to the most recent data we have on it. It's going to pass pretty close, about 5 times the distance of the moon, it's going to be dim, about magnatude 12 or so which is pretty dim and not really easily seeable unless you have a pretty large telescope. I don't think I can see it with my 8" reflector. I only posted those two lines of data to show I actually DID a calculation on it. If you wanna do you own, go here: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?rec=25143 then go down to the center of the page, and click on the box that says "generate high accuracy ephemeris for this object". Go into the calculator and set your parameters. According to part of this material I've been reading, this "Dr. Gartrell" is "who he says he is". What I have not found is that someone actually contacted the person. I will attempt to do so myself. I've got no problems speaking to a scientist and asking "did you post this information"? If he says "No", then someone is lying. :)

THIS is worse than nibiru in a lot of ways. AH HA! I have been saying this all along. Now I read it. It IS the "Nibiru scenario", but since it is a "dark cloud coming from the south" no one can SEE it. (*you see, if a planet were approaching we'd already have found it).

Aussie Bloke is correct.A supernova erupted in 1978 in galaxy IC 5201. And this means what? A LOT of supernovae have errupted. In fact, the basis for the "expanding universe" theory is directly BASED on the fact that they have been able to spot MANY, MANY exploding stars in MANY galaxies, almost any time they want to.... more details on that can be found from the Science Channel (they had a one or two hour show about that very recently in fact).

Can anyone tell me who the "PTB" is? I don't recognize that term, and don't know to whom it is referring.

Ok, since I am prone at times, especially in situations like this (and since this is a CHAT forum here) I figured I'd make a few comments. I don't really BELIEVE that Aussie Bloke is really Dr. Gartrell. I don't really believe he is even a scientist. I DO however keep an open mind about these things. There is way to put numbers on the probability of a direct impact on this planet by any unknown object. However, all scientists agree it's a foregone conclusion that such an impact WILL occur. It's not a matter of IF, but rather WHEN.

While I won't simply, personally, throw this guy out with the bathwater, I'll say that all of his fits and screaming in the thread is very reminescent of many others who've come before him, and gone the way of the dinosaur. Disappeared from the face of the internet (at least in the current alias they were using). In other words, I THINK he is a fraud. But, I won't rule anything he's said, out completely, for now. The radio conversation... well, I have ways of taking apart the data on that recording (the packet bursts for instance). Also, the material he has posted has a lot of basis-in-fact, however, dates and times and confirmation from someone who has the real credentials to verify it are not in any of the forums.

My own "credentials" would be considered 'questionable' by a lot of people. I can say that I DO have the credentials to verify the radio data, and I will make every effort to do so. I can say that I am indeed and have been for about 30+ years, a real amateur astronomer. I can say that I have a very good background in radio, astronomy, computers, intelligence and communications. I can't say much more about it though, than "I can say". I'm not trying to prove anything here, I just want people to understand that sometimes folks get too "nutty" about things, and sometimes they have REASON to be "nutty" about them. So, when you all look at this thread and laugh about it, or pooh pooh what the guy is saying, stop and think about "What if he is right". (Then again, always remember to think about what if he is WRONG as well!) Always, always look at all parts of the issue.

As another poster put it, much more clearly than I probably have, One should be just as slow to discount as to believe... With that, I completely agree.

That's all for now, I think. Later.