[PokeyJoe]

Well, it is true that comet C/2001Q4 will be .322 AU at closest approach to Earth.

See Orbital Simulation Here

If you use the High Accuracy Ephemeris Generator.... the AU goes down to 0.01115 on 16 May 2004.

I'm not sure NASA wears tin foil hats . . . that is damn close.

Too many people on the board are dismissing this as something that will not happen.

[PokeyJoe]

Note (wish we could edit past posts)

The moons Average Distance from the Earth is 0.0026 AU, or 384,400 km

[Truth666]

Well, it is true that comet C/2001Q4 will be .322 AU at closest approach to Earth.
Who says that ?

[Truth666]

If you use the High Accuracy Ephemeris Generator.... the AU goes down to 0.01115 on 16 May 2004
So it will pass between the moon and the earth ?

[Oorang]

So what is your take on this? Yes C/2001Q4 is going to be close but from what I have read all the scientists say it's not going to hit Earth, but it will be close, as in close but not quite.

As far as the author of the posted article he/she sounds like a scare monger to me. After all some of his "red flags" are:

Al Franken saying that Bush was more concerned with "meteors" than with terrorists

Letterman recently spoofing the "spotting of a new star".

Those don't seem like real viable "red flags" to me.

[COBOL2Java]

Oh how I wish that was a photo of Fallujah!

[boris]

"If you use the High Accuracy Ephemeris Generator.... the AU goes down to 0.01115 on 16 May 2004."

You are misreading the table. The closest approach (was) 1 May 2004, when the "r" (not "rdot") was 0.003499 relative to Earth in AU. "r" is the distance; "rdot" is the rate of change of distance.

Since it did not hit us yesterday, we can be fairly sure we'll be safe on 5/16/04.

May heaven save us from people who misread scientific data!

[ßuddaßudd]

I for one do not tend to dismiss the actions of nature, or it's potential. There are too many variables and we are only mere observers at the heavens trying to understand.

Let's see if the events timetable starts to show some validity, then I will angle towards survival mode.

[Quix]

The knee jerk mindless skepticism is about as, or more disconcerting than knee jerk mindless gullibility.

I have never understood why some people of certain personalities are so seemingly addicted to persistently entertaining a TYPE I error while being quite oblivious to a TYPE II error risk.

[MarMema]

ping