PDA

View Full Version : Phobos & Deimos A Go Go!



Prince
2002-Apr-22, 09:34 PM
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html

Chip
2002-Apr-22, 09:59 PM
On 2002-04-22 17:34, Prince wrote:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html


What a torrent of unrelated gobbledygook, piles of excessive wandering verbiage, some (nice) graphics, charts, and animation from various sources, (did they check copyright?) and everything from a review of Mars observations to Nostradamus, and the Bible.

Anything that opens with: "The following proof is irrefutable. There will be many that will doubt it..." is leaning heavily into the fraud category with me.

BTW: I saw Phobos (the Martian moon) with my own eyes through my telescope less than two months ago. It's still there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Apr-22, 10:48 PM
Some very intriguing items there, which I hadn't seen before:



1726 - Jonathan Swift writes in Gulliver's Travels, "Certain astrologers... have likewise discovered two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve around Mars, whereof the innermost is distant from the center of the primary planet exactly three of its diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten hours, and the latter in twenty one and a half..." Swift must have been privy to ancient documents or knowledge. Instruments of his day could not have discerned the two moons.


I haven't been able to do a search on GT yet, but the ancient documents or knowledge that Swift must have been privy to were wrong about the details. Mars' diameter is 6794 km, Phobos' orbit is 9378 km (rougly 1 1/3 times, not 3) and about 7 2/3 hours (not 10), Deimos' orbit is 23,459 km (roughly 3 1/2 times, not 5) and 30 1/4 hours (not 21 1/2). (Data taken from or calculated from The Nine Planets (http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/).) I will agree, however, that if he did write this 150 years before the moons' official discovery, then it's very interesting and we should track down his source(s). Later: Okay, I've downloaded the text from Project Gutenberg, and yes, it's in there. So how did Swift know this? Added later: Probably from reading Kepler: The Mysterious Moons of Mars (http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/marsmoon.htm). Hmm, a better link is here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951003.html), with a pretty pic to go along with it.



Remember the ecliptic is that plane that the planets pass through around the sun. It's not imaginary at all, but rather it is a demarcation of change of electrical charge from positive to negative or visa versa, depending upon the direction that you are passing through it.

Umm, electrical charge and the ecliptic, anyone? This sounds totally bogus to me, but I'm not the expert here.

I have to love the "inventive" Biblical exegesis on the side notes (the "Biblical" buttons). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Of course, it's not really all that far-out compared to some sites I've seen. One note:



A common phrase used is "from the North". Many have thought that this is referring to either the Russians or the Chinese. Without an in depth discussion here, this doesn't appear to be the case. Neither of these two peoples appear to be strong enough or prepared at this time to carry out such an ordeal.

Umm, actually the Chinese are east of Israel, whence all directions in the Bible are figured. Not north; that's the Russkies, all right. Or possibly the Armenians, except we all know that they only go to war with Turks or Azeris. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Anyway, to say that the Chinese army isn't capable of launching a destructive attack on Babylon/Iraq (as quoted in the Scripture reference) is ridiculous, although I will agree that the desire is probably not there at this time. Even the Russian army, while not the size of Stalin's massive machine, could still put Iraq out of the picture without raising much of a sweat, judging by how quickly the Iraqis rolled over in 'Desert Storm'. To say either army is neither strong nor prepared enough is rather a lame judgment.

I am favourably impressed that the one quote I've seen on this page from Sitchin was attached to a button labled "Myth". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Another "Myth" button leads to a highly selective squib on Ragnerrok from Norse mythology. I just love it when someone tries to make some tie-in like this, where he compares the fire-daemon Surtr from the mythology to flaming death from the heavens, and totally ignores all the other bits and pieces: What, pray tell, are we to make of Naglfar, the ship made from the parings of dead men's nails? Jormungandr, the Midgard Serpent, rising from the depths of the ocean? And the "resurrection", after Ragnerrok, of Baldr, of Thor's sons Modi and Magni, and of two people who hid in the woods during the whole thing? Oh, please. If all you want to use is one single detail out of a whole story, you might as well say that The Lord of the Rings is about tobacco.

Well, they mark Sitchin as "Myth", but then don't do the same with Nostre-damn-us; he gets his own special button. And this isn't just another interpretation of Nostredamus' quatrains, but of his "channeled" quatrains that he didn't actually get around to writing until he was several centuries dead and talking to Dolores Cannon on a slow night at the cemetary. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

And finally, we get:



Simply we state that we believe that Phobos and Deimos, in addition to numerous other bodies, likely natural and created, are in dynamic orbits above the Earth.

Okay, all you sky-watchers out there, you have your assignment: find Phobos and Deimos in Earth orbits.

The (or not, as the case might be) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-04-22 19:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-04-22 19:54 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Apr-23, 01:21 AM
On 2002-04-22 17:59, Chip wrote:
Anything that opens with: "The following proof is irrefutable. There will be many that will doubt it..." is leaning heavily into the fraud category with me.


Irrefutable? Okay...

6/99 - Comet Lee rounds the sun. Many weather and earthquake effects are linked to its passage. For the first time a category "5" tornado hits in Oklahoma, leaving death and destruction in its path.

Wow, a tornado in Tornado Alley during Tornado Season! What are the odds!?!

There were F-5 tornadoes in Oklahoma in 1955, 1960, 1976, and 1982 so this wasn't the first. But, more importantly, this one occurred in May 1999, not June

5/16-17/00 - One of the most powerful solar storms on record occurred. The Midwest is torn in two by a very destructive storm, spawning a category 4 tornado in Nebraska.

Wow, etc., etc.

There was some bad weather during May 2000 from Texas to Michigan, but it started May 11 and peaked May 12, then moved east and caused a large power disruption May 13. May 17-19 seemed fairly normal for the Midwest at that time of year, except for the snow in Colorado and Wyoming. Yes, there was a category 4 tornado in Nebraska on May 17... and a category 5 in Nebraska in May 1964.

5/28/00 - TMG receives an unverified report from two different NASA sources that two high level NASA scientists abandoned their posts this weekend. The indications were that they had information of a catastrophic nature concerning Mars. We were never able to verify the reports.

Now that is damning evidence! It's about on a par with those unverified Elvis sightings. (BTW, I saw Elvis last week at the Taco Bell eating a Baja Beef Chalupa and a large Pepsi. He's lost weight and grown a beard. Don't try to verify this, just take my word for it.)



BTW: I saw Phobos (the Martian moon) with my own eyes through my telescope less than two months ago. It's still there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Ah, but did you see it Mars orbit or in Earth orbit? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-23, 02:19 AM
WOW!! That website is really somethin'. I clicked on "Return to the Repository" at the bottom of the OP's link and it's like, EVERYTHING is in there. It's like one of those "All you can eat for $12.95" smorgasbords, the Hometown Buffet of astronomy conspiracy theory websites. The perfect place to while away a rainy Saturday afternoon, or a dull day at the office.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/repository.html

And the most fascinating part is, they're all perfectly serious about the "science" of it--for example, there's no mention of possible moon landing hoaxes that I could find.

2002-Apr-23, 11:27 AM
Mars & Marsfellow: Phobos & Deimos ?
<a name="20020423"> LINE 20020423 aka Mars ? Moons ?
Phobos
http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/phobos.html
The Nine Planets Glossary
http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/help.html#synco
-------------------
well? I was looking for the orbital
ecentricity{sp} or formula's for eclips{sp}
of course with spelling like this I only found THAT {above}

Phobos
2002-Apr-23, 01:10 PM
On 2002-04-22 17:59, Chip wrote:
BTW: I saw Phobos (the Martian moon) with my own eyes through my telescope less than two months ago. It's still there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Peeping Tom !

Phobos

Chip
2002-Apr-23, 04:55 PM
On 2002-04-23 09:10, Phobos wrote:


On 2002-04-22 17:59, Chip wrote:
BTW: I saw Phobos (the Martian moon) with my own eyes through my telescope less than two months ago. It's still there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Peeping Tom !
Phobos


Well, at least I didn't take credit for stealing it. Last time a "Phobos (http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/phobos.html) is missing" post appeared here, I couldn't resist answering with "OK, you got me, I took it. I'll return it tomorrow night at 9 p.m. - I was only doing a few teleportation experiments..." That got a few groans. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

One would think they'd prefer to say that Deimos (http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/deimos.html) is missing. It's smaller and a bit harder to see for most people.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-04-23 13:26 ]</font>

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-23, 04:59 PM
Hi folks. gary d. goodwin here from tmg. I love your comments and the hoopla! You guys are great. Keep the comments coming. I just have a couple of responses:
1)Thanks to Jim for reminding of the mistake I made about the Oklahoma tornado - they actually called it a "6", not a five. First time ever - in fact they didn't even know what a "six" was prior to seeing this storm!
2)Babylon as used by Isaiah (in chapter 13) is symbolic. It is NOT Iraq. It is the "world". So the army will be significantly more powerful (not necessarily larger) than China.
3) What a nice trick to see Phobos with your eyes through your telescope. Not that I don't believe you, but I would like to know some details so we might be able to duplicate your sighting. Maybe a photo? or CCD image? I have tried with my own equipment - Celestron 11" and Meade CCD. I haven't had any luck.

Lastly, and sincerely, I do appreciate the comments and work of the B.A. page. Not simply the increae in hitz for our site, but the fact htat it makes us think and defend our ideas - if not to you, among ourselves.
thanks,
gary d. goodwin
Founder
THE MILLENNIUM GROUP

Chip
2002-Apr-23, 05:20 PM
On 2002-04-23 12:59, tmgnow.com wrote:
"...What a nice trick to see Phobos with your eyes through your telescope. Not that I don't believe you, but I would like to know some details so we might be able to duplicate your sighting. Maybe a photo? or CCD image? I have tried with my own equipment - Celestron 11" and Meade CCD. I haven't had any luck.


Hi Gary,

You can see Phobos in a small telescope on a dark night away from city lights. It's best to view it when Mars is closer to Earth, but it can be seen even when Mars is further away. Phobos appears as an incredibly small speck just beyond the glare of Mars through a good eyepiece. Deimos is considerably more difficult to see, though I have spotted it with averted vision. I've seen Phobos through a home made Newtonian, a Skyquest XT10 Dobsonian at a Northern California star party in 2000, and most recently through a 90mm Meade ETC 90 EC with a 1.25" Barlow lense attached.

Chip

ToSeek
2002-Apr-23, 05:20 PM
Oh, boy! The Millennium Group is back!

My favorite bit is the juxtaposition of these two statements:

The Millennium Group is organized to create an unbiased outlet for scientific research and critical thinking. Our goal is Truth, however we do acknowledge the difficulties in attaining such a lofty destination.

From http://www.tmgnow.com/

The following is a list of untrue statements financed, and promoted, by the US Government with your tax dollars. It is the expressed intent of the Millennium Group to conclusively prove our assertion of untruthfulness, over time, on our web page.

From http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/list.html

Put another way, they say they're after truth, but they've already decided what the truth is. Then they criticize "establishment scientists" for doing the same thing.

Silas
2002-Apr-23, 07:02 PM
Lastly, and sincerely, I do appreciate the comments and work of the B.A. page. Not simply the increae in hitz for our site, but the fact htat it makes us think and defend our ideas - if not to you, among ourselves.
thanks,
gary d. goodwin
Founder
THE MILLENNIUM GROUP


That's all anyone could ask... And it's one of the reasons I love this sort of debate... I am far more eager to *learn* than merely to *know.* Knowledge is good, but I think of it more as a process than a structure. Your delight in self-reappraisal is something that is refreshing, and, alas, all too rare, both among the orthodox and the avant-garde.

Silas

Jim
2002-Apr-23, 08:07 PM
On 2002-04-23 12:59, tmgnow.com wrote:
1)Thanks to Jim for reminding of the mistake I made about the Oklahoma tornado - they actually called it a "6", not a five. First time ever - in fact they didn't even know what a "six" was prior to seeing this storm!


Ooops, wrong, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

NWS and NOAA classified the May 3, 1999, Oklahoma tornado as a category 5 with a maximum measured wind speed of 318 mph. That's the maximum for F-5, so with another mph it would have been an F-6, but just barely.

The wind speed was measured with a truck-mounted Doppler radar, of the two used in the Doppler On Wheels (DOW) project at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. ...

Wurman says the 318-mph winds probably were a couple of hundred feet above the ground, not at ground level where the twister was doing the damage that later led the National Weather Service to classify the storm as an F-5.

"We don't know this was the strongest tornado ever, just that no other had ever been measured with faster winds," Wurman says.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tornado/wfujita.htm

Now, about that mistake with the dates...

West-Kohoutek-Ikemura made its closest approach to Mars in June 2000, while Mars was in conjunction with the sun. For the comet to "round the sun" wrt Earth in May 1999 (when the tornados occurred) sounds a bit implausible as it would have still been approaching Mars and over a year away from solar conjunction.

See for yourself:
http://www.astroarts.com/comets/2000/0076P/java-orbit.html

(fixed links)
_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-04-23 16:15 ]</font>

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-23, 08:31 PM
Dear Jim,
In your haste to be critical of my statements you must've forgot that we were talking about comet Lee, not 76P. Sorry to correct you. But I am glad that you acknowledge that the tornado was the strongest ever recorded. Thank you.
gary

Hale_Bopp
2002-Apr-23, 09:29 PM
You might also check to see when Phobos attains larger apparent distance from Mars. It will be easier to see then. If you look when it is very close to the disk of Mars, it is easy to lose in the glare.

It's not like the Galilean Moons where you can see them pretty much whenever they are not directly behind the planet!

Rob

Rob

Jim
2002-Apr-23, 09:44 PM
On 2002-04-23 16:31, tmgnow.com wrote:
Dear Jim,
In your haste to be critical of my statements you must've forgot that we were talking about comet Lee, not 76P. Sorry to correct you. But I am glad that you acknowledge that the tornado was the strongest ever recorded. Thank you.
gary


Oops, my bad! And it even says "Lee" in my opening post. (sigh) A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.

But, hey, correct away. That's all part of the scientific/investigative process.

Oh, and as a correction, Comet Lee went behind the sun as seen from Earth about July 12/13 and came out about July 21/22. It made its closest approach to Mars about May 13/14 and was on a line with Mars and Earth about May 14/15.

http://www.astroarts.com/comets/1999/1999H1/java-orbit.html

So, although I got the wrong comet first time around, it still looks like your dates don't jibe.

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-25, 05:12 PM
Jim,
Thank you for the correction. I would refer you to an article we posted concerning the destruction associated with Comet Lee.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/lee9.htm
Although the OK. tornado was a couple of weeks before Lee was close to the Earth this doesn't rule out its effect. We call it effect from a distance. As you may or may not know, we are supporting a model of comets purposed by Prof. Jim McCanney (previously of Cornell). The basics are that comets are highly charged astroidal bodies that due to their charge, cause fluctuation in the solar system when they pass through the plasma rich inner solar system. Thus the status quo of the system is effected and thus changes in our weather and such. Comet Lee was within range to cause such disturbances likely long before the stated date. But thank you for the correction.
gary d. goodwin
bad astronomer

Silas
2002-Apr-25, 08:12 PM
Do you have (or does anyone have) a nice chart of tornadoes vs. comets? Obviously, all tornadoes aren't caused by comets, or else "tornado season" would imply something profound about comet distribution. But if this theory is right, there should be solid statistical evidence linking comets to storms.

Until then, I'll support the null hypothesis and suggest that comets have no effect on earth's weather.

(That's the nice thing about the null hypothesis: I don't have to prove it!)

Silas

Jim
2002-Apr-25, 09:07 PM
You're crawfishing, Gary. Your chronology seems to attempt to establish a cause-and-effect relationship not supported by the facts:

6/99 - Comet Lee rounds the sun. Many weather and earthquake effects are linked to its passage. For the first time (sic) a category "5" tornado hits in Oklahoma, leaving death and destruction in its path.

This would seem to say that the passage of Comet Lee around the sun led to tornadoes in Oklahoma... a month before.

5/16-17/00 - One of the most powerful solar storms on record occurred. The Midwest is torn in two by a very destructive storm, spawning a category 4 tornado in Nebraska.

And this seems to say the solar storms caused the storms in the Midwest... five days earlier.

Here's where you crawfish:

Although the OK. tornado was a couple of weeks before Lee was close to the Earth this doesn't rule out its effect. We call it effect from a distance.

Then I'd suggest you at least hint at this in your chronology. You should also try to find a linchpin for this "effect from a distance" beyond what appears to be a, "Well, it was sorta in the neighborhood so it must have caused the effect." Indeed, all you've done is add another take to the butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon and causing a typhoon in Japan. A preceding event must be closely correlated to an effect to be considered the cause. You fail to establish this, and your chronology makes this all too obvious.

As you may or may not know, we are supporting a model of comets purposed by Prof. Jim McCanney (previously of Cornell). The basics are that comets are highly charged astroidal bodies that due to their charge, cause fluctuation in the solar system when they pass through the plasma rich inner solar system. Thus the status quo of the system is effected and thus changes in our weather and such. Comet Lee was within range to cause such disturbances likely long before the stated date.

I read (well, scanned) your link. What stood out:
Most critical is the September 6, 1999 alignment of Venus, and Earth with the new Moon (with the Moon being to the sunward side of Earth) and with the C/Lee coming over and behind us in the non-sunward side. If the comet starts to kick up CME's in that alignment then we should see some truly horrible hurricanes develop in the Atlantic. McCanney

McCanney must not have heard of the El Nino Southern Occilation (ENSO).

The ENSO phenomena have been connected with a change in worldwide weather patterns and a reasonable correlation (cause and effect) has been established. Using information from ENSO, Dr. William Gray (of Colorado State University) issued a prediction for the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season for 14 named storms/9 hurricanes/4 major hurricanes; the actual numbers were 12/8/5. Dr. Gray issued his prediction in December 1998.

If you really wish to push the concept that a comet passing through the inner solar system has an effect on the weather, then you need to develop a much tighter correlation, and show your correlation equal to if not better than the ENSO correlation.

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-25, 09:12 PM
There is likely not a list that compares tornadoes vs. comets. Our ecosystem has these events regardless of comets or other external influences. What we are suggesting is that the system energy is intensified by the induction of cometary energy. SO what we look for are exacerbated limits of intensity. Such as F-6 tornadoes, seismic events in large numbers or clusters equal to or greater than 6.0's, hurricane numbers and intensity, magnetic, proton and eelctron events related to sun-comet connections, and on and on. So it's more the intensity that we are looking at, rather than the shear numbers. Gravitational or tidal effects, due to cometary activity, just do not cause that much consternation to the system.

But what about a comment or two on the recent DS1 findings at Borrelly???? Come on guys and gals! NO WATER! Where's the dirty snowball theory when you need it??? A distinct tail, yet no SNOW! Come Whipple fans, defend that one!
In all reverence and politeness,
gary d. goodwin
TMG

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-25, 09:24 PM
Jim,
quote:
although the OK. tornado was a couple of weeks before Lee was close to the Earth this
doesn't rule out its effect. We call it effect from a distance.

Then I'd suggest you at least hint at this in your chronology. You should also try to find a linchpin
for this "effect from a distance" beyond what appears to be a, "Well, it was sorta in the
neighborhood so it must have caused the effect." Indeed, all you've done is add another take to the
butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon and causing a typhoon in Japan. A preceding event must
be closely correlated to an effect to be considered the cause. You fail to establish this, and your
chronology makes this all too obvious.

How many correlations do we need before it is an accepted possiblity? What is that number anyway? Is it published in a NSF publication or where? What have is purely observation. We do not possess the instruments of the NOAA or the abilities that our millions upon millions of tax dollars buy. And then the info is kept proprietary. We are simply a few people looking for understanding in the world that we must live.

As to J. McCanney's papers and other writings on the page, you might take a few hours and see what we have posted. If you're interested at all. It sounds like you do not have a sound basis for ruling out our ideas.
gary d. goodwin
bad astronomer!

Jim
2002-Apr-25, 09:38 PM
On 2002-04-25 17:12, tmgnow.com wrote:
There is likely not a list that compares tornadoes vs. comets.


Then start one. These links provide some background information:

Comets Information
http://www.astroarts.com/comets/

Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.html

Historical Tornado Data Archive
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/archive/tornadoes/

Severe Storms
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tornado/wthist0.htm



Our ecosystem has these events regardless of comets or other external influences. What we are suggesting is ... exacerbated limits of intensity. Such as F-6 tornadoes... So it's more the intensity that we are looking at, rather than the shear numbers. Gravitational or tidal effects, due to cometary activity, just do not cause that much consternation to the system.


Then develop a correlation. The links I provided can give you the raw data.

(Oh, and BTW, there have been no F-6 tornadoes. As I posted before, the May 3, 1999, OK tornado was clocked by Doppler at 318 mph maximum.)



But what about a comment or two on the recent DS1 findings at Borrelly????


Not part of this topic. Why don't you start a new thread? How does a "dry" comet fit into your suppositions?

Jim
2002-Apr-25, 09:48 PM
On 2002-04-25 17:24, tmgnow.com wrote:
How many correlations do we need before it is an accepted possiblity? What is that number anyway? Is it published in a NSF publication or where? What have is purely observation. We do not possess the instruments of the NOAA or the abilities that our millions upon millions of tax dollars buy. And then the info is kept proprietary. We are simply a few people looking for understanding in the world that we must live.


I've tried to be polite, but, really, this is to laugh!!

Any correlation would help. I have given you the links to the raw data. Go get it. Put it in a spreadsheet. Graph it. See if you have any correlations.

If you think you have one or more, then use those correlations to make some predictions. There must be a comet a-coming sometime soon (next year or two). Test your theory by seeing if it predicts behaviour.

So far, you have talked about comets rounding the sun, crossing the ecliptic and being in some form of proximity to various planets. You need to tie down your cause a little better, then see if it correlates to an effect.

Obviously the info isn't kept proprietary. It's on the Web for anyone with a browser, a search engine and a little curiousity.



As to J. McCanney's papers and other writings on the page, you might take a few hours and see what we have posted. If you're interested at all. It sounds like you do not have a sound basis for ruling out our ideas.


You have given me no sound basis to accept your ideas! Develop a correlation, then get back to me.



gary d. goodwin
bad astronomer!


Just a piece of advice... There is only one BA, and you ain't he.

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-25, 09:57 PM
Jim, You said:
"A preceding event must
be closely correlated to an effect to be considered the cause."

Where did you get this jewel? Where does the timeline of events fit in? And in the case of comet Lee what was the preceding event? It's a matter of energy and the amount, how long does it take to dissipate? Was the event at the time of the tornado? Or was it six months before when the comet came close enough?

here's another reference from one of our members who is a Russian physicist, head of the department at the University of Soberisk:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/planetary/tornado.html
gary

tmgnow.com
2002-Apr-25, 10:05 PM
Jim,
One more point concerning the page. I don't expect you to accept our ideas. We are not hee to convince you or anyone. I was merely pointing out that you have made judgements about something that you have not researched thoroughly enough - namely the body of work of the members of THE MILLENNIUM GROUP. We have drawn correlations, we have made graphs, yada yada yada. But obviously not many folks like yourself in particular care to investigate far enough to make a rational judgement.

The addition of the title of B.A. to my name was for your amusement. Appreciation is something that also preceeds the event. Sorry but our conversation is finished until you spend a little more time looking at the work we've done. And you likely are not interested. So thank you very much for the time we have spent together, best wishes to you and yours.
gary d. goodwin

aurorae
2002-Apr-25, 11:13 PM
On 2002-04-25 18:05, tmgnow.com wrote:
<stuff, you can see it in the above message>


In other words, to translate, you are going to wave your hands and pretend that you have done real science, when everyone knows you haven't, and then sneak away saying that the problem is because people don't take the time to understand all the marvelous science you have done.

You forgot to mention the conspiracy against your organization. If you had, you would have gotten a higher score.

Silas
2002-Apr-25, 11:49 PM
On 2002-04-25 17:57, tmgnow.com wrote:
Jim, You said:
"A preceding event must
be closely correlated to an effect to be considered the cause."


I'm sorry that the conversation seems to have taken a nasty turn.

I think that Jim's point is that for you to claim that event a caused event b, you have to draw some sort of meaningful correlation.

It isn't easy. We know, today, that cigarettes cause cancer. But they only do so in a statistical sense; there are millions of people who smoke who don't get cancer...and millions of people who get cancer who've never smoked.

It seemed to me that you were claiming that a comet caused a particular tornado on earth. I questioned you, and you (quite rightly) backed down and acknowledged that tornadoes have other causes as well.

That's why I asked for some statistical support for your hypothesis.

Personally, I don't think a comet could influence the wind patterns that cause major storms. Do you have a model for the mechanism of causation?

I'm dubious; I'm skeptical. You've made a fascinating claim, and I'd love to learn more about it. My default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that your claims are unproven, but that is never a reason for rudeness.

Silas

Karl
2002-Apr-28, 06:48 PM
From:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html

As 76P approached Mars it began to enter the ecliptic. Remember the ecliptic is that plane that the planets pass through around the sun. It's not imaginary at all, but rather it is a demarcation of change of electrical charge from positive to negative or visa versa, depending upon the direction that you are passing through it. In the past we have documented a number of comets as they have passed through this wall of electromagnetic change.

Huh???? Where did that information come from?

The Russian VEGA (i.e. non-NASA and non-JPL) spacecraft carried sensitive electric field detectors to comet Halley, no signs of an "electric comet" there.

wanglese
2002-Apr-28, 11:48 PM
On 2002-04-28 14:48, Karl wrote:
From:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html

As 76P approached Mars it began to enter the ecliptic. Remember the ecliptic is that plane that the planets pass through around the sun. It's not imaginary at all, but rather it is a demarcation of change of electrical charge from positive to negative or visa versa, depending upon the direction that you are passing through it. In the past we have documented a number of comets as they have passed through this wall of electromagnetic change.

Huh???? Where did that information come from?

The Russian VEGA (i.e. non-NASA and non-JPL) spacecraft carried sensitive electric field detectors to comet Halley, no signs of an "electric comet" there.



Just a little snippet the Millennium Group don't like to be reminded of:

Chris Carter developed the TV program Millennium, and named the Millennium Group, based on "the Academy", a group which consults to the FBI etc, nearly a full 18 months before the "Millennium Group" decided to play out their fantasies.


I received a rather hysterical and threatening email from one of the Millennium Group, who claim "This name was chosen an entire year before the creation of this silly t.v. show. And much like the tactics that you have used, someone saw the name and grabbed it."

Well, investigations, and correspondence from those that should know, state that the program Millennium premiered in Fall 1996, and that the "Millennium group" a fictional group, was based on another organisation of a completely different name. The Millennium Group registered their web domain on 8 December 1997. I think that says it all for now.

The Millennium Group are one of the chief "feeds" for my local doomsday cult leader, (incidentally, they claim they did a "background check" on him, ) when I emailed them and asked them if they were prepared to take responsibility for anything that may happen if the group decided to "martyr" themselves, I was got a rather hysterical email back, calling me a Nazi. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

Prince
2002-May-22, 10:20 PM
Phobos update & TVF swiped!

ttp://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos3.html

beskeptical
2002-May-23, 06:47 AM
My post at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1343&forum=1&
applies to this thread as well.

DoctorDon
2002-May-23, 03:58 PM
I had a rather odd run-in with the millenium group a few years back. A friend of mine had forwarded me a URL for an article about black-hole candidate XTE J1118+480, and he wondered if I knew anything about it. I said, "Yeah, I was one of the three people that discovered it!" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif So I read the article, which was on the Millenium Group web site, and it was a really weird hodgepodge of conspiracy theory and anti-NASA ranting. The salient part for me, though, was that they claimed discoveries about 1118 were being suppressed and covered up, because after the flurry of grandiose claims about the system around the time of its discovery, nothing more was being said for several weeks. They concluded that nothing was being done, and that NASA was suppressing work on this system to avoid learning things that would undermine currently accepted wisdom.

I wasn't sure I should write them at all, but they made a big deal on their site about being devoted to "The Truth", regardless of whom it benefits, so I thought it was worth the risk. I pointed out that (a) work *was* being done on the system; quite a lot of work, in fact. (b) the relative silence (two papers had just been published on the subject in the last couple days of my writing to the Millenium people, a few months after the discovery of 1118) was simply due to the fact that it takes time to collect the data, analyze it, write the papers, and get them peer-reviewed. No conspiracy here, just absolutely normal science. and (c) the binary system was certainly unusual, and was bound to upset some theories about the arcane details about accretion disc behavior, but was not going to revolutionize all of astrophysics. There were other factual errors (bad astronomy) in the article, but I don't remember what they were.

They were delighted to hear from me, and promised to rewrite the article. I offered to proofread the revised article for them, if they wanted to make sure they got it right. Never heard from them again. I checked back on their site a year or so later, and the article was still there, unchanged. Although I tried again when they were mentioned in this thread recently, and I couldn't find it, so perhaps they have taken it down.

Still, I think the whole epsiode shows that their so-called committment to truth is a sham, and that they are just more paranoid conspiracy-mongers. I wouldn't recommend wasting any time on them.

Yours,

Don

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-23, 06:45 PM
Let's not be too subtle here: The Millennium Group is a bunch of cranks.

I have had several run-ins with them. They make all sorts of outrageous claims, grossly misinterpret data, and don't bother to talk to any real scientists to get solid information about what they speak.

Their diatribes about SOHO data, for example, inspired me to literally walk across the hall to talk to a solar astronomer, who, within 5 minutes, was able to get info showing me what the SOHO images were all about. Had they actually called her (or any other solar astronomer) they too could have had real answers in the same amount of time.

Years ago, they claimed that the Cassini spacecraft had somehow sped up, getting its Earth-gravity boost a day early. In reality, they forgot to subtract a day when converting from Universal time to Pacific time; for example, 3:00 a.m. UT is 7:00 p.m. Pacific time the previous day. From this mistake, they spun all sorts of conspiracy claims about NASA speeding up the spacecraft. I emailed them about this, and got a very nasty reply from gary godwin. This was something like two or three years ago, but the mistake is still on their page.

Given this, I would put very little faith in their claims about martian moons.

Someday I'll write a page about them, but at the moment I loathe to give them the publicity (though they probably get more hits than this page; such is the irony of life).

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-23, 06:49 PM
They mention the Cassini rendezvous at least twice; here (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/cassini.htm) and here (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/cassini2.html).

They don't make a big deal of it on the site, but it's still there, and they shroud it as a mystery.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-24, 12:55 AM
While answering an email about this very topic, by the way, I remembered I wrote about a comet hitting Phobos a while back. Wally Anglese in Australia still has it on his webpage. I think you'll find it amusing (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Comet_West-Kohoutek-Ikemura.html).

beskeptical
2002-May-24, 05:04 AM
"all twitterpated anew" (from the above link)
I love that phrase /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif