Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed

From: Rudolph_X (nospam_at_please.net)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:21:18 GMT

Rudolph_X wrote:
>
>
> DrPostman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:25:37 GMT, Rudolph_X <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You're a cheap 'establishment' shill, with no credibility whatsoever,
>>> and you obviously don't even know how to read either.
>>>
>>> Most of what I wrote was in the form of questions. I didn't make any
>>> 'wild assertions' as you falsely claim. I'll admit the questions were
>>> 'loaded', but they were questions, not statements making any claims,
>>> and every sentence was qualified by 'may be', 'could be', 'might be',
>>> etc., pure speculation. But, you can't see that, because you're so
>>> smart?
>>>
>>> You are the 'dope' claiming that I made 'wild assertions', when all
>>> they were, were qualified questions. Learn to read! Then maybe you
>>> won't make such a fool out of yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Same old Rudy. Make innuendo and use every manner of statement but
>> your own so that when you get busted for promoting stupidity you cry
>> "I never said that"! It's your modus operandi. Obfuscation is a
>> religion with you.
>>
>>
>
> The fact is, is that I never said what you mistakenly attribute to me. I
> stated clearly that, "reports I read had indicated that the asteroid was
> coming up from under the Southern Hemisphere." I did not do the research
> myself, and I gave reference to the sources that did. There were
> numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first broke,
> that spoke of all the astronomers going to the observatory in Souther
> Australia, and to Antartica, to better observe the phenomena, and they
> explained, better than I did, why the astronomers were going south. Why
> would all the astronomers and researchers go south to Antartica and
> Souther Australia?
>
> I am going to go back and dig up those articles and post them here for
> you to see for yourself. Remember, I was not the author of those
> articles, I merely passed on what was said in those articles, and
> clearly stated that the opinions given were not my own, but were from
> articles I had read. As soon as I dig them up, I'll post them here so
> you can take up your arguments with those authors who originally wrote
> them. Then we'll see what you have to say. (But, I suspect you'll just
> put your tail between your legs and run, like your hero Phil does when
> asked to debate.)
>
> However, I don't know why I should bother. Because even when I put the
> undeniable facts right in front of your face, you'd probably still deny
> the truth, and not admit that you are wrong.
>

OK. Here is the 2nd installment. I'll post more as I dig them up.

This one is just to show what kind of destructive power is involved.

"At three miles long it would present a terrible danger to the Earth if
it were to collide with the planet, although scientists at NASA say this
is unlikely. It is travelling at a speed of about 20 miles per second
and if it struck the ocean would unleash a "mega tsunami" or giant tidal
wave that could reach around the entire globe, inundating millions of
hectares of land, destroying coastal habitations and killing perhaps
millions of people.

"If it hit land it could completely destroy an area the size of Europe
and would raise enough dust into the atmosphere to change the climate of
the planet completely, causing a mini ice age that would freeze crops,
destroy plant life and pre-empt a global famine. It would also
completely destroy the ozone layer."

->http://www.rense.com/general50/sep29th2004.htm

If it is true that it is coming up from under the Souther Hemisphere,
and if it hits, it will most likely to hit the southern portion of the
globe. And that being mostly water, it would most probably strike the
ocean, giving us the 'mega tsunami' scenario. However, if it hits either
Australia of Antartica, we can expect a land strike scenario and the
'global famine' outcome which would be worse than if it strikes the ocean.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed
    ... >> numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first broke, ... >> Souther Australia? ... > "If it hit land it could completely destroy an area the size of Europe ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed
    ... >> numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first broke, ... >> Souther Australia? ... > "If it hit land it could completely destroy an area the size of Europe ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed
    ... >> were numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first ... >> Souther Australia, and to Antartica, to better observe the phenomena, ... > "If it hit land it could completely destroy an area the size of Europe ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed
    ... >numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first broke, ... >that spoke of all the astronomers going to the observatory in Souther ... >explained, better than I did, why the astronomers were going south. ... And what truth would that be, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed
    ... numerous articles, written at the time the Toutatis story first broke, ... explained, better than I did, why the astronomers were going south. ... Souther Australia? ... As soon as I dig them up, ...
    (sci.astro)