It Is Time to Focus on Comets

[AlienSun]

Yep, that's me! Cognitive dissonance wildly out of control.

I also enjoy being laughed at. I'm only human!

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think everything exists for the sake of humanity. I don't think anything like that. I said quite the opposite.

I only asked, why do you think 'aliens' would be coming here?.

Please read my signature quote.  You give me a reason to add something sometimes necessary. 
"Intelligence seeks to proliferate itself, not necessarily via its own kind.
You teach your cat/dog/parrot something...or maybe it teaches you."

[midicon]

Please read my signature quote.  You give me a reason to add something sometimes necessary. 
"Intelligence seeks to proliferate itself, not necessarily via its own kind.
You teach your cat/dog/parrot something...or maybe it teaches you."

Thank you for that. Had I read your signature, I might have realised why and had no curiousity.

I don't think you had to add anything in this case but hey ho lol.

[AlienSun]

Thank you for that. Had I read your signature, I might have realised why and had no curiousity.

I don't think you had to add anything in this case but hey ho lol.

Attempts at humor sometimes escape into other territories.  No slight meant.

[AlienSun]

Can you please explain the drive system that allows the comet ships to decelerate when approaching and accelerated when leaving this solar system. Someone would notice that new sun in the sky at both times. And without this menouvering thrust, they would just pass by at that 20% of the speed of light.

They would probably use up 90% of their mass for producing the thrust necessary. That would make them one trip each without refueling. But this is not the case as their return is quite predictable and each time they seem the same only a little smaller.

Common UFOs that we've seen for over 8 decades here amongst us display that they operate in a massless state.  --They have no parts that beat on the air for lift.  It seems prudent that if you have that ability on the little runabouts you use for planetary exploration that you would power your massive ships in the same manner.  You would not be burning matter in exhaust against old-style physics.  You simply negate local physics.  Possibly, you get two for one, a massless state, and a timeless state that negates light years of travel time (as perceived from our view).

[AlienSun]

HALLEY'S COMET
One of two parts


Halley's Comet is a cometship like many of the rest.  Readers may balk at that straight-forward pronouncement for the well-known visitor, but nonetheless, the comet is a spaceship in its own way if not the gleaming, streamlined and vastly over-resourced conveyance we typically envision at the mention of the word.

At its 1910 apparition the comet was spectacular in appearance.  It was first found visually on September 11, 1909.  A rechecking of photographs made of the area earlier disclosed that it was first captured on a photograph taken on August 14 of that year.  Very faint when visually discovered, it was of the 15[sup]th[/sup] magnitude and much dimmer than the faintest star visible to the naked eye.

As early as November 17[sup]th[/sup], the comet was noted to have an elongated nucleus and a "motley, granulated" appearance.  On about February 11, 1910, the glow became bright enough for the unaided eye to see it, and thus, the comet because visible to most of the world.

Perihelion, its closest approach to the Sun, was reached on April 19[sup]th[/sup].  The comet was poorly positioned for good viewing up until that time.  During the last of May, as the comet and Earth came closer together, the better telescopes about the world began to show details of the comet that are unsettled yet today. 

A lengthy time-exposure photograph of the comet taken May 11, 1910, shows an interesting situation in the comet's tail.  Well back from the coma is a spot of light, an object of some sort.  The camera/telescope was following the path of the comet, this caused all stars in the photo to appear elongated due to the time-exposure.  Had this object been a star, it would have been recorded as a short streak instead of a spot.  The well-formed round image definitely proved that the object was moving along with the comet.

It would be an easy matter to assume that the object is a film blemish and let it got at that.  Better to assume that the astronomers would say, than believe that the object was moving along at the same speed and direction as the comet.  The comet is a very old comet by such standards, having returned many times and it would not be expected that it should start fragmenting and falling apart.  However, confirmation that the spot of light is a real object can be found in a critical viewing of the entire photograph.  It is very evident that there is a visible disturbance in the portion of the tail flowing over and around the object.  Not only is the spot of light a legitimate object, it is producing a very visible "field" effect upon the tail material in its vicinity.  Unfortunately, none of the astronomers made mention of this strange appearance of the object and tail disruption despite it being captured for posterity on film.

A month and a half past perihelion the old faithful comet suddenly appeared to be disintegrating.  "Secondary nuclei" were noted by many astronomers using the larger telescopes.  Many more reports of changes in Halley's light were also noted.  One report told of the comet "flashing yellow and red," at one time three nuclei were first witnessed.  Other witnesses reported rapid changes of light and "occasionally sparkles."

From Philadelphia, D. Doodbeard observed the comet on May 27[sup]th[/sup].  Not a professional, he felt free to state the situation exactly as he perceived it.  He reported: "…Nucleus well-defined and as bright as a star of the 7[sup]th[/sup] magnitude.  A flash from the nucleus clearly seen.  It was confined to a point of light which darted seemingly earthward.

"After an interval of several minutes a moderately bright flare-up occurred and while it lasted, the dense part of the coma around the nucleus presented a mottled aspect.  The flare-up gradually subsided in two and a half seconds of time.  Atmospheric conditions for seeing at their best."

The drawings below (perhaps not included in the internet version) were made by Nicholas T. Bobrovnikoff from photographs taken by the Helwan Observatory in Egypt.  The drawings span the time from May 31.279 through June 5.689.  View the drawings as negatives.  Dark areas are light areas in reality.

The comet is seen as four nearly equal comas in drawing "a."  They reside within an irregular-shaped, larger coma having an abrupt edge.  Intriguingly, the nuclei are all connected by luminous bands to the one displaying a very heavy "jet" of luminous material; it is considered the "parent" body.

Between the time of drawing "a" (May 31.279) and that of "b" (May 31.692), about ten hours transpired. According to the scale of the drawings, which are all about the same, the distances between all "fragments" increased.  During this period, the comas also greatly increased in size--except for that of the parent emitting the jet.  Here, the coma has reduced so drastically that it has become indistinguishable among the intersecting bands of luminous material that still mysteriously connect it to all of the other phenomena.  In drawing "c" the parent has developed a coma and the distance have increased.  By drawing "d" a little more than 24 hours later, the appearance is less complex but more obscure.  By the next day they had changed to appear as in drawing "e."

Drawing "e" should be important to astronomers; it shows the four bodies again easily discernible, much smaller than they appeared a day earlier.  Most importantly, they are closer together than when first photographed and they are in a linear sequence.  This is a remarkable arrangement for natural bodies to achieve once separated.  It portrays a regrouping of the objects closer together in an orderly fashion. They resemble a military craft formation.  (This is not the only time an orderly formation has been exhibited in multiple nuclei groups.)

The famous Italian astronomer Giacobine offered a matter-of-fact description for what he saw happening between the time of drawing "c" on June 1[sup]st[/sup] and drawing "d" on June 3[sup]rd[/sup]. 

"On June 2.239 the preceding nucleus was very much brighter than the others and the fourth faint nucleus changed its place so that it was nearer the line joining the three brighter nuclei."

He ventured the suggestion that they rejoined the main mass.  It is unlikely for pieces of a natural-theory comet to behave in this manner.  Once a disruptive force has severed the supposed cohesive bonds that keep a comet together as one piece and gives the fragments enough impetus to move outward from each other into various orbital paths of their own, nothing but the greatest fluke of nature would cause them all to move together again.  Neither can the blame be laid to changing perspectives.  In that short period of time, such would not have altered them enough to be apparent.  We can concluded that the drawings are a representation of four natural nuclei coming together again to form a miraculous alignment, or we can suspect what was witnessed at that time in 1910 though a few telescopes of vocal astronomers was as orderly maneuvering of spaceships under intelligent guidance.

Bobrovnikoff's drawings are part of an official publication of the University of California's Lick Observatory.  Published in 1930, the volume was intended by Bobrovnikoff as a definitive work on Halley's Comet.

While Bobrovnikoff's efforts did cause to bring together the largest collection of knowledge about one comet up until that time, he was unable to answer the basic question of what a comet is, and thus, why it behaves as it does.

He studied 438 original photographs and 271 reports in producing his work.  In analyzing and reporting on that great mass of  information, he was given no choice, he wrote, but to question the whole understanding of cometary astronomy.  Of his work another astronomer wrote, "Bobrovnikoff ends his long (170-page) investigation on a note of dissatisfaction with its outcome, stating that it is possible that some fundamental process within comets entirely escapes the eye and the photographic plate, and that what is observed may be but a link in the processes of interaction of cometary matter and solar energy."

Bobrovnikoff was right in acknowledging his and his field's shortcomings in deciphering comets.  He suspected unknown forces at work, but he thought them unknown natural forces, of course.  Neither can this book exponent for cometships that it is, offer a play-by-play account for the actions observed in Halley's Comet in 1910.  However, were we to view the mysterious antics of Halley's Comet at that passage, we would not turn away in total bafflement as did Bobrovnikoff.  Though we would not exactly understand the how or what of the events, at the least, we would have the consolation of the more general knowledge that nature was not acting alone.
                                               Part Two to follow

[AlienSun]

                                                     Halley's Comet

                                                            Part Two

As for the comet, it advanced beyond naked-eye range around June 11, 1910.  In later June the comet still caused a stir, if of a lesser kind.  A June 28[sup]th[/sup] photograph showed a sharply defined nucleus and a companion trailing along.  Another June photograph suggested, as an astronomer said, "A structure of the head resembling a very close cluster of faint stars."

During December 1910, and the subsequent January and February, many observatories reported that the retreating comet had gradually brightened.  Sunward jets were noticed in December and January.  Shortly, the comet grew fainter.  It was last seen, by photograph, on June 15, 1911, twenty-one months after discovery.

As a last comment on the 1910 appearance, it must be said that it is unusual for a natural-theory comet to exhibit sunward jets when several AU's away from the Sun.  Such evidence is contrary to that theory.  Jets could be expected when the comet was closest to the Sun several months earlier, and for the jets to be of such intensity as to be visible when the comet is far away implies that they were extremely strong.  Add the dimension that they were sunward jets that had not been noted in the comet at any time during it appearance in around the Sun and such an anomalous feature is even more unusual for the conventional theory to encompass.  The whole idea of jets pointing in any direction is at odds with the basic theory.  Comets are believed to rotate on several axis at once.  Given this characteristic, any jet should not persist in any one direction.  An expulsion of materials from the body, even if not producing a thrust-effect on their own action would cause the comet to appear like a firework’s pinwheel, the jet curving around the spinning nucleus.  Perhaps a better example is the effect seen when a stream of water at full force from a garden hose creates a curved path as the nozzle’s direction is changed.

To lessen the charges of sensationalism aimed toward official observers of the accounts of the 1910 apparition and to better show how Halley's Comet has never been a nice, textbook comet, we'll look at some of the data from earlier returns.  And again, the astronomers themselves will speak about what they saw.  In modern comet works the description of Halley's Comet at its return of 1835 is usually omitted, or if mentioned, little more is said than it displayed "horns like a bull."  The following is taken from the notes of the astronomer Smyth regarding the 1835 return.

"Oct. 11.  The tail was increasing in length and brightness, and what was most remarkable, in the opposite direction to it there proceeded from the coma across the nucleus a luminous band or lucid sector more than 60 seconds or 70 seconds in length and about 25 seconds broad, with two obtuse-angled rays, the nucleus, being its central point.  The light of this singular object was more brilliant than the other parts of the nebulosity, and considerably more so than the tail; it was therefore amazingly distinct.  On applying as much magnifying power as it would bear, the nucleus appeared to be rather gibbous than perfectly round.  But with the strange sector impinging, it was a question of difficulty."

In 1889 George Chambers wrote The Story of the Comets from which the above account was taken.  Chambers, himself an astronomer, was no less than Smyth taken with the appearance of the comet.

"The physical appearance of Halley's Comet at the 1835 apparition seem to have been in many respects very remarkable, and did the statements not emanate from some of the most distinguished astronomers of the time, it might be permissible to distrust them.  It is impossible, however, to distrust anything stated by such men of skill and high character as Bessel, J. Herschel, W. Struve, and Maclear.  Struve compared the appearance of the nucleus at the end of the first week of October to a fan-shaped flame emanating from a bright point; and subsequently to a red-hot coal of oblong form.  On October 12 it appeared like the stream of fire which issues from the mouth of a cannon at a distance when the sparks are driven backwards by a strong wind.  At moments the flame was thought to be in motion or exhibiting scintillation similar to those of an Aurora Borealis.  A second small flame forming a great angle with the principal one was also remarked.  On November 5 the nebulosity independently of the flames (two of them being visible) was widely dispersed in both time and distance between them. 

Bobrovnikoff concluded from his exhaustive 1910 study that a nucleus must consist of large numbers of separate bodies with diameters far smaller than the distances separating them.  --It should be noted that this observation of his came from detailed data garnered from the work of many independent others, it was not an armchair theory of sheer speculation.

To my knowledge no astronomer acted upon his assessment and predicted that the comet would not return as scheduled.  Rather, the astronomers seem to have abided by the far more general historical data of the comet's repeated returning over the centuries and wisely held their tongues.  And it did return as scheduled with no talk of multiplicity even through the 1986 appearance.  But there were subdued discussions.

Keep in mind that Bobronvikoff‘s data were supplied by many other astronomers attempting to record what they individually witnessed.  The overwhelming conclusion obtained from this material was that the comet was a multi-bodied object of some sort. And quite apart from theories about comet compositions, the simple physics of naturally orbiting bodies stipulates that the conglomeration objects witnessed within the coma in 1910 (if not earlier in history) cannot return in such a closely packed form again.  But all of these crucial points have been conveniently overlooked to sustain current theory.  A simple, comprehensive explanation according to our view is that the comet was either visited by other vehicles, or its own support vehicles were visible once they stood apart from the main body.

I shall repeat the following point again and again in various ways in the course of this book because it, it nothing else, is indicative of how cometary astronomers have allowed themselves to stray from the facts of the matter to instead support their own pet concepts:  It is a supposed rule of the scientific disciplines that when theory and observation disagree, observation is taken as being closer to the truth of the matter and theory is revised to match it as closely as possible.  With Halley's Comet--and with all comets, the truth has been blatantly ignored in many instances in favor of sustaining the weak grasp of current theory.  At some point, governments learned the true identity of comets and astronomers were informed not to change the story about comets, but to continue to spin the old theories through today.  Generations of scientists,  in the name of their search for TRUTH via Science have done a vast disservice to the advancement of mankind.  However, big Science, the handmaiden of government, had little choice.  One can only wonder what our world would be like if the UFOs that appeared in numbers in 1947 had been acknowledged by even one major world government.  But, NO! The whole coverup continues even far beyond Halley’s last appearance in 1986.  Must we wait until its return in about 2062?  Personally, it seems the ETs are waiting for an uprising from the people to ask them to reveal themselves.  So let’s do it! 

[AlienSun]

In trying to come to terms with the evidence of long-term alien interventions in establishing ancient civilizations and a continued presence, I offer a practical reason for such interest.  I suspect that their basic purpose was/is the procurement of certain resources that they are lacking at their home system. 

Gold and other elements found throughout our rich and diverse planetary system may make us a "honey-pot" for the ETs.  That would explain the regular visits of cometships as mere freighters, for the most part. 

Back in the late 1970s and 1980s, we starting sending cameras out into the void to asteroids.  Asteroid-mining was a very hot topic.  All manner of outlandish plans were put forth suggesting how those rich ores could be stripped and shipped back to earth.  Maybe even by "sling-shot" methods. 

I think it was on ATS, a relatively close image appeared of an asteroid's crater having an apparent huge piece of mining equipment inside it.  I often wondered about the details of why the image was released.  Certainly, it may have been a fake to peak our interest in such projects, but perhaps the purpose of even that was to expose to us the very act of mining already being done by others?