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 » Asteroids

The Royal Society Laughs at 2012

Submitted by on February 14, 2011 – 2:21 pm4 Comments

A few days ago, the highly-regarded Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell gave a Royal Society lecture about the sham that is 2012. You can watch it online:

Now for some criticisms!

You have to wonder about a scientist who doesn’t understand how search engines work, yet we should trust her skills in analyzing the 2012 meme. Seven minutes into the lecture Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell tells us that there are 56 million Google results when she searches for end of the world in 2012, and the audience laughs. There aren’t, merely 56 million web pages that contain all of those words, somewhere on the page. Any professor should be smart enough to estimate that 56 million people have not made websites about 2012.

Searching for:
“end of the world” 2012
yields just 1.7 million results. Of these 95% or more will be computer-generated spam. Real websites with original content about 2012 probably number around one thousand. Not nearly as interesting or attention grabbing.

I guess you would call this reverse-scaremongering, where smug Royal Society devotees marvel at how many 2012 idiots there must be out there.

Of course she picks on the wackiest 2012 theories, which are the easiest to poke fun at. Yet she does not mention any of the websites where she found the wacky theories, so that people can make their own decisions. If those websites even exist…

For example she dismisses the theory of a 2012 planetary alignments. If you do a Google search for this, you won’t find any websites describing a planetary alignment in 2012, which makes sense, for there won’t be such an alignment and it would be hard to prove otherwise. This would explain why she does not have a slide showing this purported alignment theory. Could it be it is the professor who is confused, or that she has deliberately ignored the topic of a galactic alignment in 2012.

Another wacky theory she picks on, where I am unaware of any serious website making such claims, is that we will be sucked into the black hole at the galactic center.

Her science is also narrow-minded and out-of-date. Recent research suggests the magnetic poles might reverse rapidly, but she only mentions the old estimate of 5,000 years. Professor Bell Burnell gives lots of great detail about asteroids, yet fails to mention comets – comets are more likely to remain undetected until too late, and could have been predicted by ancient cultures.

This intention of this post is not to pick on this particular professor. It is because it saddens me that so many very intelligent, well-regarded scientists have approached the 2012 meme in such a biased way, with no intentions to fully investigate the possibilities. They find the aspects of 2012 that are the easiest to dismiss, but avoid the difficult ones. I was really hoping an audience member would ask “what about comets?”, but alas, it was not to be.


  • Maya Cain says:

    Rob … if you search for “end of the world in 2012″ you get – as of today – 60,700,000 hits, but if you search for “end of the world” 2012 (as presumably you did) you do indeed get just 1,700,000 hits. You must be precise if you want to maintain your reliability as well as asking others to be precise

  • Rebecca says:

    Wow! What a difference one word can make? Did you say “Royal”, also degrees and awards?
    I remain unimpressed!! Ignorance and unawareness is still present, under their smugness and false pride.

  • NM156 says:

    I don’t suppose they mentioned, that if you do a search for “The Royal Reptillian Agenda”…… I mean everyone i have ever talked to from the UK thinks they are reptillians, or would not be surprised if they where. The true Royals are freaks of nature, having interbread so much in the past, that their blood is tainted (hemopheliacs). They are the few, they Know this, they would eat their own young to get ahead, they are murderers. I would tell these ignorant esoteric and closeminded morons, watch out for Iceland. To me Rob, it hasn’t been about pin-pointing a particular date in 2012. However it is an Era for the advancement towards True Disclosure. Having said this, why do you think, they would be so coy, to do such a thing? You don’t actually think, that mindful people would give a care about these idiots theories. It’s well known, how these filth led the masses into slaughter, time and again. Rest assured… it will end on the date they questioned, if not sooner. Also i am not saying i believe in the whole reptillian thing, no , but that Queen, she gives me the creeps. :D

  • Robert Bast says:

    I don’t think the royals are shape-shifters like Icke says, but they could certainly be different to us. Prince Charles would have to be the spin doctor… he appears to be on the side of our types.

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.