Survive 2012 by Robert Bast - Special Offer at Amazon - Click Here!
Powered by MaxBlogPress 

Dark Comets »

Another Expert Agrees With Dark Comet Theory

February 21, 2013 – 11:31 am | No Comment

Astronomer David Asher (from Armagh University) has agreed with Bill Napier and Janaki Wickramasinghe (Cardiff University) that “dark comets” are real and dangerous.
The following quotes are from a paper by Napier and Asher published in Astronomy & Geophysics.

We know that about one bright comet (of absolute magnitude as bright as 7, comparable to Halley’s Comet) arrives in the visibility zone (perihelion q<5AU, say) each year from the Oort cloud. It seems to be securely established that ~1–2% of these are captured into Halleytype (HT) orbits. The dynamical lifetime of a body in such an orbit can be estimated, from which the expected number of HT comets is perhaps ~3000. The actual number of active HT comets is ~25. This discrepancy of at least two powers of 10 in the expected impact rate from comets as deduced from this theoretical argument on the one hand, and observations on the other, is …

Read the full story »

From DIY to Russian megabunkers


Preparing for when the SHTF

Pole Shift

Crustal displacements and magnetic pole shift – both are scary


Don’t believe NASA – these are a genuine threat


More likely during eclipses and perhaps Comet Elenin is a factor?

Home » DNA, Evolution

Risk Distribution Law For Evolution

Submitted by on November 11, 2007 – 1:12 amNo Comment

I’ve been saying for a long time that a bombardment of cosmic rays would cause high rates of mutations in humans, but our bodies are capable of repairing DNA damage, and can choose which damage to leave unfixed. That’s correct – choose.

Now supporting evidence has arrived:

Barkai and her team discovered a sort of “risk distribution law” for evolution. They found that a genetic “phrase” that regularly shows up in the promoter region of genes (the bit of genetic code responsible for activating the gene) contains a key to gene conservation: The expression of a gene that contains the sequence TATA in its promoter is more likely to have evolved than that of a gene that does not have TATA in its promoter.

In other words, the level of risk appears to written in the gene code, in a way that’s similar to financial risk analysis: When the cost of error is high, an investor’s willingness to chance the risk is low, but if the cost of a mistake is negligible, even if the chance of making one is high, the possibility of gain may make the risk worthwhile. Evolution, it seems, discovered this principle millions of years before Wall Street. (more here)


Perhaps we could afford to mess with the size of our ears, but we would rather not take any risks with our eyes.

A gene associated with the size of ears might have the sequence TATA, so when mutated, the DNA is not repaired, and new sizes of ears develop. But a gene associated with the eye might not have the sequence TATA, so our body repairs any damage to it.


This means that many humans can mutate in similar ways – and this gives us the potential to mutate into a new human species, via cosmic ray bombardment

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.