Paul Lawler wrote:

Rudolph_X wrote in newsTvWc.6757$Ff2.6283@trndny06:



"Asteroid shaves past Earth's atmosphere"

"This was an extraordinarily close encounter and so the orbital change
was quite extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before," Chesley told New Scientist."

-http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996307



Did you have a point here Rudy, or are you just replacing the corner
newsboy? Extree... Extree... read all about it. g


Hi Paul,

Grok the point.

Many scientists, with 'credentials', like to act as if they know what
they are talking about, when actually they are more like folks talking
about the weather. "Looks like it is going to rain tomorrow." But, then
you get a sunny day. Just look at the recent debacle with hurricane
Charley. The 'experts' told the folks not to worry, "You are not in the
direct path of the hurricane. Relax." But, then they were proven wrong,
and hundreds of people died because they believed what they were told by
the 'experts'.

Like weathermen, scientists are often wrong, as well. The scientists
say, "We can tell you the exact path of the orbit of the asteroid
Toutatis." Do you trust them? "Don't worry, it is not going to hit
Earth," is what they say. But can you be certain?

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before." He didn't give an
explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have changed the 'predicted'
course.

A little while ago we were discussing Toutatis in a different thread,
which is due on the 29th, in another thread, and I was making some
comments that were called 'wild speculations'. I made this post for
those who were following that thread, just to illustrate that the so
called 'experts' are not always correct. The folks who were following
that tread can grok the point I was making. You were not a part of that
discussion, so of course, being an ignoramus, you assumed that there was
no point to my post.