NASA: We Told You So – 1 Week Early
To be fair, I’m probably going to write a blog post in the next few days, for release after Dec 21, explaining how the doomsday could still come even if the exact day provided by the ancient Maya was incorrect. And of course the media prepare obituaries for people who are still alive and kicking.
So, nothing wrong with it really, but here’s the video NASA are releasing when the world doesn’t end next week:
Recently, NASA scientists gathered for a Google Hangout to debunk the multiple end-of-world theories alleged to transpire later this month. NASA even put together a YouTube video titled “Why the World Didn’t End Yesterday” clearly meant to be released on December 22, after the winter solstice doomsday the day before. [via CNet]
Interestingly, this debunk gets several things wrong:
- They mention that the Maya believe the world began 5,000 or so years ago. They completely neglect to mention that there were prior “worlds” that ended catastrophically. So they highlight the beginning of this age, and totally leave out the end of the last.
- “no known asteroids or comets” are heading for Earth. Well, that’s obvious. Are they suggesting there could be an unknown object heading our way? What about a dark comet? I bet that NASA have a team tasked with identifying dark comets that could be heading our way, and I really hope they do.
- They point out the the current solar maximum is quite weak. What they don’t say is that the Carrington Event occurred during a solar minimum – the big one can happen any time, not necessarily at the solar maximum, just more likely.
- “the Sun has never once destroyed the world“. Well, that’s kinda obvious as well and completely dodges the question of a solar storm knocking out power grids.
- Oh, and all these experts have no formal education in archaeology or cultural studies or the like. So they have no understanding of how a cultural relic (the Long Count calendar) could have a non-literal use. In an academic sense, their opinions would never be accepted for publication – they are not qualified.
