> Subject: New Comet Discovered, Possible Earth Impact, Govt > > Secrecy > > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 > > > > EcoNews Service > > Vancouver, BC > > VANCOUVER - Remember those dramatic photos of twenty > > fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashing into Jupiter > > in July 16-22, 1994? > > > > Well, scientists at the Millennium Group are worried that > > Comet Lee, a wild card (non-periodic) comet first > > discovered by Australian Steven Lee on April 16, 1999, may > > pass discomfortingly close to Earth sometime starting in > > mid-August, 1999 and continuing through early 2000. > > > > At the very least, they say, Comet Lee may cause solar > > explosions (CMEs) in our solar system, earthquakes, and > > hurricane-like weather on Earth. At the worst, well, > > Shoemaker- Levy's comet fragments crashing into Jupiter > > could be a pictorial warning for Earth if Comet Lee is > > captured in Earth-moon orbit. > > > > What has Millennium Group scientists James B. Ervin, Jim > > McCanney, Alexey Dmitriev, Gary D. Goodwin, Ray Ward, Hal > > Blondell, Don Carros, and Wayne Moody worried is that > > Comet Lee s behavior is defying all predictive models by > > NASA's and other's super-computers. > > > > Millennium Group scientist James B. Ervin says, The truth > > of the matter about [Comet Lee] is that nobody can project > > its path .I believe there is ample evidence to suggest > > that it will pass much closer to Earth than originally > > anticipated .Especially, if Comet Lee is hit by a [solar > > explosion] during its perihelion passage. > > > > Earl L. Crockett, another Millennium Group Scientist, says > > we may already be experiencing the effects of Comet Lee. I > > would personally add that it may in fact already be > > responsible for the very weird actions we have been seeing > > from the sun over the last several months; i.e. the > > appearance that something has been "pulling" energetic > > charges away from the Sun in the opposite direction of > > Earth producing large [solar] CME's/flares that for the > > most part have had little electromagnetic effect here on > > Earth. > > > > Scientist Jim McCanney adds that [Comet Lee] is truly a > > lawless comet, and with the erratic brightening happening > > it is certain to be far off course every day. This could > > be a doozy! August is now looking like a time for the > > first possible trouble. > > > > Disturbingly, scientist Ray Ward says tight military > > security has been mounted around official tracking of > > Comet Lee, impeding public knowledge and scientific study. > > The word is Ultra tight security on Comet Lee. The > > Military side of NASA is running this show now, so forget > > any type of cooperation. Ward adds, Too bad NASA has > > destroyed the [Comet] Hale-Bopp data that we could really > > use to help provide the correction factors needed on Comet > > Lee. Comet Hale-Bopp s closest Earth approach was on March > > 22, 1997. > > > > According to McCanney, planetary alignments in mid-August > > and September 1999 may make Comet Lee particularly > > hazardous. > > > > The big key here is the upcoming planetary alignments and > > that it will be the electrical plasma alignments not > > gravity that will be the potential harm givers. Most > > critical is the September 6, 1999 alignment of Venus, and > > Earth with the new Moon .I have even considered that if > > the comet orbit is "hooked" enough we could see a close > > enough encounter that the Earth and moon could capture > > this thing as a permanent new member of the earth moon > > system, or worse; at it would flip out into a future > > collision course with us again and again like Venus did to > > Mars some 4000 years ago. > > > > Researchers have raised concern about the potentially > > catastrophic effects of two other space events in > > mid-August, 1999, which may be compounded by Comet Lee. > > One is the Solar Eclipse of August 11, 1999. The other is > > the Earth flyby of the Cassini spacecraft on August 18, > > 1999, carrying 72 pounds of plutonium, equivalent to over > > 50% of all the radiation released since the beginning of > > nuclear testing. > > > > The Millennium Group is an independent group of scientists > > and researchers organized to create an unbiased outlet for > > scientific research and critical thinking. Millennium > > Group research on Comet Lee appears at: > > > > http://www.millenngroup.com/repository/cometary/lee.htm

-- Bob (Wheetez2@aol.com), June 18, 1999

Answers

The NASA and JPL info on Comet Lee.

http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/

That speaks for itself.

As for the rest of this:

> One is the Solar Eclipse of August 11, 1999.

If you have an almanac, you can check the dates on this - but back in 1994, about April 16, there was an Eclipse (annular) that was at maximum totality on a path that crossed Springfield IL. I took my 13 year old daughter out of school and we went up there to see the eclipse. She still says it was the coolest thing we ever did together. I did not notice any earth shattering effects.

The other is > > the Earth flyby of the Cassini spacecraft on August 18, > > 1999, carrying 72 pounds of plutonium, equivalent to over > > 50% of all the radiation released since the beginning of > > nuclear testing.

The above statement about 72 pounds of plutonium is simply untrue. Hundreds of nuclear tests released less radiation than 72 lbs of plutonium? I know you won't believe me, so do yourself a favor and email Robert Cook.

If this is typical of the quality of the information put out by Millenium Group, I suggest you quit listening to them. I usually grade stuff as good, doubtful, bad and awful. This is worse than awful. Don't bother posting any message to me on this thread - I don't intend to revisit it.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 18, 1999.

Good grief!

There are multiple earlier threads in this forum about Comet Lee. Look 'em up yourself.

The Millennium Group is full of hoakum. A fast giveaway is the capitalization of the word "Truth" in their statement, "Our goal is Truth, however we do acknowledge the difficulties in attaining such a lofty destination." Capitalization of "Truth" other than at the beginning of a sentence is highly correlated with bogusness.

If James B. Ervin, Jim McCanney, Alexey Dmitriev, Gary D. Goodwin, Ray Ward, Hal Blondell, Don Carros, and Wayne Moody are having their views correctly represented on the Millennium Group's web site, they should be ashamed of the denotation "scientists".

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

To clarify: My opinion of the Millennium Group is NOT based on the capitalization of a single word. That's just a quickie clue that I've seen on hundreds of such sites.

My opinion is based on the volume of ignorance displayed in their statements.

People who argue that many of the revolutionary theories in science were originally considered "crackpot" (and that therefore their crackpot theories are destined to be accepted eventually) usually neglect to mention, perhaps because they do not understand, that those revolutionary theories that eventually became accepted had to first explain all the observational facts, not just some subset, better than the preceding theories before they could be accepted as genuine advances in science. Ptolemy's theory explained the observed motions of the planets, and could have been endlessly tweaked to account for discrepancies. Copernicus's and Kepler's and Galileo's and Newton's and Einstein's theories explained them _better_, with less and less tweaking.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

You have been well brainwashed by the system I see No Spam.

Read "The Robots Rebellion" by David Icke. It is still not too late for you to see the light.

You and your ilk are described to a tee, and it ain't pretty.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

Nospam & Paul: I think it looks fishy too, but on a somewhat related note, what about the "snowballs from space"? The evidence now is that tens or hundreds of thousands of cometary globs about the size of a house are impacting the earth every day, possibly depositing organic matter. The new evidence from the polar observatory photos is hard to refute. Just a couple of years ago, this theory was considered outrageous. Now it apparently is true.

1. Have you heard about this?

2. What do you think of it?

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.

a,

>I think it looks fishy too,

Some of what the Millennium Group is claiming about Comet Lee are just plain ignorant statements. Example: "This means that C/Lee's "orbit" (period) can only be determined with any certainty ... after C/Lee has reached perihelion (crossed over the Sun), and exited down below the orbital path of the planets (the ecliptic)."

But "perihelion" does NOT mean "crossed over the Sun". It is NOT true that an accurate (if that's what they mean by "with any certainty") orbit cannot be determined before perihelion.

Another example: "shed (sublimate) their icy dust thereby loosing mass: which in "good-old" Newtonian physics means that their orbits should expand outward rather than tighten inward."

No -- loss of mass by sublimation of icy dust does NOT mean in Newtonian physics that the orbit must change. Now, if that sublimation is not uniform in all directions, the net change in _momentum_ (which involves velocity as well as mass) would mean a change in orbit -- but it could be either inward _or_ outward according to real Newtonian physics, not Millennium Group's perversion of it.

>what about the "snowballs from space"?

Insofar as evidence accumulates to support a theory, that theory becomes more credible. Applies to any theory.

>The evidence now is that tens or hundreds of thousands of cometary globs about the size of a house are impacting the earth every day, possibly depositing organic matter. The new evidence from the polar observatory photos is hard to refute.

I haven't seen this "new evidence from the polar observatory photos" (can you provide a reference?), so will comment only that if it turns out that the evidence is being correctly interpreted then maybe eventually it will be generally accepted that this theory is correct.

>Just a couple of years ago, this theory was considered outrageous. Now it apparently is true.

When there is reliable evidence to support a theory, then it begins to look truer. One criticism of the first photographic evidence was that the dots on the photos could be the result of instrumental defects rather than actual images of small objects. So the scientific community (real scientists, not the Millennium Group kind) wants better evidence.

>1. Have you heard about this?

Yes.

>2. What do you think of it?

Show me the evidence -- of several independent types, so that a systematic error in one type of evidence does not lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Since I first became interested in astronomy forty years ago, I've seen some theories bloom on the basis of initial evidence then fade when other evidence failed to support it. Other theories that originally sounded pretty farfetched to me and others continued to accumulate evidence so that now they are accepted as mainstream.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

72 pounds of plutonium would release a lot of radiation IF IT FISSIONED. Passing by several thousand miles away, NOT fissioning, just doing its thing, it's not a threat.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

An example of half-truth that could either be all-ignorant or partly-deceptive:

>The other is the Earth flyby of the Cassini spacecraft on August 18, 1999, carrying 72 pounds of plutonium, equivalent to over 50% of all the radiation released since the beginning of nuclear testing.

First, one must realize that nuclear bombs do not convert ALL of their fissionable or fusable mass into energy. Only a small fraction of it is actually transformed into energy. So "all the radiation released since the beginning of nuclear testing" is not the same as all the energy to which their fissionable or fusable material is E=mc^2-equivalent.

Now, if one were to calculate the E=mc^2 equivalent energy of the entire 72 pounds of plutonium, transformed at 100% efficiency (which occurs only in "Star Trek", and is impossible to achieve through fission of plutonium), one will arrive at a figure which is indeed larger than all the radiation released by nuclear testing. But comparing the two figures is not particularly meaningful.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

Nospam: here ya go. From http://search.boston.com/globe/offbeat/daily/12/space.htm. There's a lot of coverage on the issue in the geophysical and astrophysical journals as well, but this pop press article seems to be a little less "emotional" :)

Dispute heats up over snowballs from space theory

Associated Press, 05/12/98

WASHINGTON (AP) - Space snowballs may be pelting the Earth's atmosphere, but not in the blizzard of ice boulders proposed by a famous theory, researchers say in the latest volley between warring scientists.

Satellite measurements and calculations by experts suggest that the Earth's extreme upper atmosphere is too dry for there to be a constant shower from space of huge chunks of ice, scientists say in a study to be published May 14.

But Louis A. Frank, a University of Iowa physicist, just shrugs off the latest attack on his theory.

``There's no way that could be right,'' he said of the new study. ``There are some people who are just being more emotional than scientific about this thing.''

In the small community of atmospheric physics, emotions about Frank's theory have reached a red-in-the-face, fist-shaking level. Five other studies attacking the theory were published earlier this year and at least four papers opposing it are planned this month at an American Geophysical Union meeting in Boston.

But Frank is unruffled. The Iowa scientist says he has proven his case and the skeptics are just ``emotional die-hards.''

``The only thing that changes some scientists' opinion is death,'' he said.

Whoever is right, Frank said the public is fascinated by his theory and it remains a hot, controversial topic among experts.

Twelve years ago, Frank presented evidence that a satellite had detected what he said were house-sized chunks of ice speeding through space and colliding with the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

When that finding was denounced, Frank designed a camera for a new satellite and got more pictures. At a meeting of the AGU last year, he presented new pictures that showed objects streaking in from space and then ballooning into clouds some 600 to 15,000 miles above the Earth's surface. He said the objects were ice chunks weighing up to 40 tons moving at more than 20,000 miles an hour. He estimated that about 200 million tons of space ice vaporize around the Earth annually.

Frank said the space ice adds up to an inch of water to the planet every 20,000 years and that it may be the source of water for the Earth's oceans.

Many scientists at the meeting said Frank proved that comets routinely were hitting the atmosphere and some suggested it was a major new discovery. But most doubted if the comets were as big or as numerous as he claimed.

Researchers led by Bryan J. Hannegan of the University of California, Irvine, now say they have new proof that Frank is wrong.

Hannegan, lead author of a study in Geophysical Research Letters, said water measurements by another satellite show the atmosphere 15 to 35 miles above Earth is too dry to be receiving 200 million tons of water a year from space.

There may be space snowballs, Hannegan said, but at the very most they amount to only about 2 million tons yearly spread evenly around the planet.

``We can't rule out that there is water coming in from space,'' said Hannegan, ``but we think it is about 100 times less than what Frank proposes.''

Otherwise, he said, there would be more water vapor and other gases in the high upper atmosphere than was detected by the satellite.

Confronted with the study, Frank just laughed.

``They've tried to say that before,'' he said. ``They're wrong. You can't just stop 20 tons of water vapor at the top of the atmosphere. It comes in at a high speed and then just plunges deep into the atmosphere.''

Told that four more studies attacking his theory would be presented at the Boston meeting, Frank chuckled again.

``I'll be there,'' he said with a relish. ``We're down to 10 or 20 skeptics and they'll never change their minds.''

-- a (a@a.a), June 19, 1999.

I expect we could all be humbled by the ability of the universe to do as it damn well pleases. It was here before we were dust. Who are any of you to second guess it?

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

In fact, I read an article by Gwyenn Dyer about 10 years ago that talked about a theory that DNA arrived on comets. Although originally formulated to explain the organic spectra we see in comets, the theory goes further, offering to solve the "epidemiological paradox", which asks "why does a rancher that lives in the middle of Wyoming with no close neighbors have the same incidence of infectious disease (eg. common cold) as a checkout clerk in Tokyo's busiest department store?"

The answer, according to the theory, is that virus particles are continually falling to the earth from cometary matter entering the atmosphere from outer space.

-- a (a@a.a), June 19, 1999.

Reading this aren't you Paul? Knew you would. A junkie's a junkie.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 19, 1999.

As usual, Paul Davis will believe anything with the suffix *gov* (see above URL he posts) Well how 'bout the rest of you? Are you in any way shape or forum suspect of *gov* these days? Don't get me wrong, I sincerely believe that the majority of folks drawing wages from the gov are good, honest people, BUT!!

Here are a couple to check out for yourself and make a personal judgment, not one some goofball is trying to shove down/up you.

by the by-- check our Raliegh for the web roleigh_for_web@egroups.com 6-10-99

http:www//sunspotcycle.com

http://dxlc.com/solar/

http://ottawa.rasc.ca/

Like the good book says "keep looking up!"

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 19, 1999.

Hello,

Okay, in regards to the comet:

What can I say? All but discounted is the fact that we are tracking the comet (How could we find it again if it weren't following a predicted course? These things are HARD to spot, and if they behave erratically we will lose them and have to find them all over again)? How does he explain that it is already through the plane of the ecliptic? How come every other comet has followed their predicted courses with fair accuracy? How come the comets that got millions of miles closer didn't have these predicted and remarkable meteorological effects? How does he explain that HUNDREDS of comets hit the sun every year, EVEN AT THIS MOMENT, but we just don't give 'em names cause we lose them in the glare? Why does this comet have more effect than Hale-Bopp when it is 150 MILLION miles away at perihelion? At its closest pass to Earth it will be about 60 MILLION miles away? Why aren't we being affected just as much by comets c/1995 01, c/1997 BA6, c/1998 M5, c/1998 P1, c/1998 T1, all long-period comets, or any of the half-dozen short-period comets that are cruising the inner solar system RIGHT NOW? What evidence does he have to prove his remarkable theory about comets, in light of the probe we flew through the tail of one? How does he explain the passage of Earth THROUGH HALLEY'S TAIL (1919; you should read some of the REMARKABLE things people thought were going to happen then) having no effect at all? And how...?

But we must tell one tale at a time, I suppose. What can I say...ANOTHER doomsday prophecy with little to NO science.

As to Cassini: In reality it will pass about 300-400 miles from Earth on its flyby. There isn't anything new to that. It is carrying 72 pounds of plutonium on board, but it isn't the nifty fissionable stuff. It is onboard to generate heat, and with that heat comes Casssini's electrical power. Its next stop after flyby is Saturn...and that's a LONG way from Sol. There will be lots of people making noise, as there was during the launch, talking about poisoning everyone on Earth and other tripe.

So let me make some bold predictions here: Other than a POSSIBLE but unlikely nifty show (we all remember Kohoutek), this cometary body will have no impact on the weather, gravitation, or electromagnetics of Earth, the Sun, or any of the other planets, exactly as Halley, Kohoutek, Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake, or any of the hundreds of unnamed random wandering objects have had this year. Cassini will make its flyby with no discernable effects on humanity. Some humans will make much noise about both events. In late August, we can see who's track record of prediction is better.

Any bets?

Keep smiling,

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), June 19, 1999.

Jonathan,

Nothing personal, but, your diction and choice of words sounds alot like our beloved Paul.

-- Sniff? (idunno@justguessing.not), June 19, 1999.

Uhhh.. Thanks? I think Paul's writing is pretty good, so I guess I'll take that as a compliment. :)

Jonathan

-Not even on the same CONTINENT as Paul-

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), June 19, 1999.

I think it is pretty much a fact now...the Doomers will buy into ANYTHING.

It is good to keep a weary on the gov, but my god, you all seem to think they are all some sort of masterminds if you think they can pull off half the crud you people think they do.

-- Wanna Buy Some Swampland? (haveabridge@forsale.com), June 19, 1999.

"We're down to 10 or 20 skeptics and they'll never change their minds."

Kinda sounds like this forum, doesn't it? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 19, 1999.

Just so you know -- Jonathan Latimer is from the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum and posted on the infamous "take over and defuse the Timebomb" thread.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 19, 1999.

check:

Alan's Millennial Madness Calendar List http://www.provide.net/~aelewis/y2ko/y2ko_350.htm

-- alan (c@c.c), June 19, 1999.

Come on, if you're clever enough to use a computer, you're clever enought to get rid of all those ">>" signs.

Go to "edit," then "find & replace" > with . (leave blank)

See how easy that was? Even I can figure it out.

-- annoyed (by@bracket.signs), June 19, 1999.