WisconsinGardener
Loony Member
Edit to add: I never really spelled out the point of this thread. Apophis, the asteroid, was discovered in 2004, and that time NASA calculated that there was a 2.7% chance that it would hit earth on Friday the 13th, April, 2029. Then, they decided, no, it will not. It will miss us by 19,000 miles. That's not 19 million or even 190,000 - that's 19,000 miles. With it coming THAT close, we want to know for sure that they are right, right? Interestingly, they named the Asteroid after the Egyptian serpent god - the enemy of the sun god. He's also known as the chaos god. Fun name, huh?
The Grand Solar Minimum thread on this forum is one of the most interesting, scary?, motivating threads I've read here. I do not know if the Apophis subject warrants as much attention or not, but I think a place to gather information is appropriate. There are some woo woo aspects, which perhaps means I should start another thread in Unexplained.
So, this got my attention when I saw a video on Skywatch TV that was talking about a new book by Tom Horn. HE became interested in Apophis because of a "metaphysical experience" that he had - which you can explore further and I'll give a couple of links for you to do that. However, this thread is to gather as much actual evidence as possible in one place - so I, you, we, can decide if it's important or not.
I am not discounting his dream/vision, etc. This is the same guy who announced a year in advance the month and year that Pope Benedict was going to resign - and that was after 500 years of a Pope never resigning. In fact, I am taking it fairly seriously, but like him, now I'm after the hard evidence. He, himself, said the exact same thing. He was shown, he believes, that Apophis WILL hit the earth in 2029. But, that was just his starting point to start investigating. What he discovered is that there are a number of people who feel that NASA could be in error on their calculations - or even are deliberately hiding data.
So, here is the second video in the series, where he begins talking about what he has found, including a real, provable NASA coverup.
Physical link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_UqTFrCNB8&t=871s
Also edit to add: the picture on the video is a fictional one of what the networks might say if they knew Apophis would really hit.
In this video, he talks about a paper by Nathan Myhrvold, a guy often listed in the top 100 "thinkers" in the world: An empirical examination of WISE/NEOWISE asteroid analysis and results
In that paper, Nathan Myhrvold accuses NASA of, best case, mismanaging data. In his abstract, he suggests that in some cases, there is as much as a 57% error. When you're talking potentially hazardous near Earth objects, you do not want to have ANY error, let alone one that is so large that it makes any statement from them meaningless.
Here is the abstract:
That was a peer-reviewed article, published in "Icarus" in November, 2018. In this blog, he spells it out the "scientific misconduct" more clearly: What’s Wrong with NEOWISE
My day is calling, so I'll have to stop here and add more later.
The Grand Solar Minimum thread on this forum is one of the most interesting, scary?, motivating threads I've read here. I do not know if the Apophis subject warrants as much attention or not, but I think a place to gather information is appropriate. There are some woo woo aspects, which perhaps means I should start another thread in Unexplained.
So, this got my attention when I saw a video on Skywatch TV that was talking about a new book by Tom Horn. HE became interested in Apophis because of a "metaphysical experience" that he had - which you can explore further and I'll give a couple of links for you to do that. However, this thread is to gather as much actual evidence as possible in one place - so I, you, we, can decide if it's important or not.
I am not discounting his dream/vision, etc. This is the same guy who announced a year in advance the month and year that Pope Benedict was going to resign - and that was after 500 years of a Pope never resigning. In fact, I am taking it fairly seriously, but like him, now I'm after the hard evidence. He, himself, said the exact same thing. He was shown, he believes, that Apophis WILL hit the earth in 2029. But, that was just his starting point to start investigating. What he discovered is that there are a number of people who feel that NASA could be in error on their calculations - or even are deliberately hiding data.
So, here is the second video in the series, where he begins talking about what he has found, including a real, provable NASA coverup.
Also edit to add: the picture on the video is a fictional one of what the networks might say if they knew Apophis would really hit.
In this video, he talks about a paper by Nathan Myhrvold, a guy often listed in the top 100 "thinkers" in the world: An empirical examination of WISE/NEOWISE asteroid analysis and results
In that paper, Nathan Myhrvold accuses NASA of, best case, mismanaging data. In his abstract, he suggests that in some cases, there is as much as a 57% error. When you're talking potentially hazardous near Earth objects, you do not want to have ANY error, let alone one that is so large that it makes any statement from them meaningless.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract
Asteroid observations by the WISE space telescope and the analysis of those observations by the NEOWISE project have provided more information about the diameter, albedo, and other properties of approximately 164,000 asteroids, more than all other sources combined. The raw data set from this mission will likely be the largest and most important such data on asteroids available for many years. To put this trove of data to productive use, we must understand its strengths and weaknesses, and we need clear and reproducible methods for analyzing the data set. This study critically examines the WISE observational data and the NEOWISE results published in both the original papers and the NASA Planetary Data System (PDS). There seem to be multiple areas where the analysis might benefit from improvement or independent verification. The NEOWISE results were obtained by the application of 10 different modeling methods, many of which are not adequately explained or even defined, to 12 different combinations of WISE band data. More than half of NEOWISE results are based on a single band of data. The majority of curve fits to the data in the NEOWISE results are of poor quality, frequently missing most or all of the data points on which they are based. Complete misses occur for about 30% of single-band results, and among the results derived from the most common multiple-band combinations, about 43% miss all data points in at least one band. The NEOWISE data analysis relies on assumptions that are in many cases inconsistent with each other. A substantial fraction of WISE data was systematically excluded from the NEOWISE analysis. Building on methods developed by Hanuš et al. (2015), I show that error estimates for the WISE observational data were not well characterized, and all observations have true uncertainty at least a factor of 1.3–2.5 times larger than previously described, depending on the band. I also show that the error distribution is not well fit by a normal distribution. These findings are important because the Monte Carlo error-analysis method used by the NEOWISE project depends on both the observational errors and the normal distribution. An empirical comparison of published NEOWISE diameters to those in the literature that were estimated by using radar, occultation, or spacecraft (ROS) measurements shows that, for 129 results involving 105 asteroids, the NEOWISE diameters presented in tables of thermal-modeling results exactly match prior ROS results from the literature. While these are only a tiny fraction (0.06%) of the asteroids analyzed, they are important because they represent the only independent check on NEOWISE diameter accuracy. After removing the exact matches and adding additional ROS results, I find that the accuracy of diameter estimates for NEOWISE results depends strongly on the choice of data bands and on which of the 10 models was used. I show that systematic errors in the diameter estimates are much larger than previously described and range from − 5% to + 23%. In addition, random errors range from − 15% to + 19% when all four WISE bands were used, and from − 39% to + 57% in cases employing only the W2 band. The empirical results presented here show that much work remains to be done in analyzing data from the WISE/NEOWISE mission and interpreting it for asteroid science.
That was a peer-reviewed article, published in "Icarus" in November, 2018. In this blog, he spells it out the "scientific misconduct" more clearly: What’s Wrong with NEOWISE
My day is calling, so I'll have to stop here and add more later.
Last edited: