Inuit Elders Issue Warning to NASA and the World that the 'Earth has Shifted'

Nope. All the ancient solar observatories such as Stonehenge still line up exactly on the solstices. Even the modern versions such as the solar spotlight at the Anthem Veterans Memorial line up perfectly.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Maybe because the Inuit live at the top of the globe and thereby have a different and unique perspective of astronomical events than all the rest of us?

If you can explain how the Earth's pole shift affects only the top of the pole and not the rest of the Earth be my guest.

The fact that other people on this thread are perceiving changes in their environments indicates that it is possible that the video is true when it claims that the Inuit are perceiving changes in their environment. If the axis isn't shifting then perhaps there is some other explanation. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that the land on which the Inuit live is shifting in some way. Earthquakes, either natural or manmade, could be causing changes in their environment. Furthermore, this lady claims that there are over 150 weather modification programs around the world. If that is true then those programs could cause changes to the atmosphere and appearance of the sun.
twitter.com...

The governments throughout the world that are advancing communism/socialism under the guise of addressing 'global warming' or 'climate change' are likely responsible for causing the 'climate change'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The perspective of the observer is different at the top than it is at the equator. Things are different up there, as the appearance of the sun is very different. You know, long days and such, long nights and such.

If you don't get that, it's OK.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I did not say a polar shift effects only the top of the planet, you did.

I said the perspective changes at the poles compared to the perspective at the equator. Is that rocket science?

originally posted by: Salander
The perspective of the observer is different at the top than it is at the equator. Things are different up there, as the appearance of the sun is very different. You know, long days and such, long nights and such.

And? If the day suddenly 'got longer' at the poles they would by virtue of simple geometry get equally longer at the equator.

This is a conspiracy for people who hate and don't understand basic math.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A conspiracy? Who is conspiring with whom?

This is simple physics, the angles of light rays and the positions of observers and the heavenly bodies being observed.

originally posted by: Salander
This is simple physics, the angles of light rays and the positions of observers and the heavenly bodies being observed.

And when they change in one part of the world by they would necessarily need to change in another. You can't suddenly get longer nights in one place an not another, it's simple geometry.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Depending upon which month of the year it is, and whether the observer is in the northern hemisphere or the southern, the length of daylight and night time is directly related to how far north or south of the equator the observer is.

This is old news. I'm surprised you've never experienced it yourself.

originally posted by: Salander
Depending upon which month of the year it is, and whether the observer is in the northern hemisphere or the southern, the length of daylight and night time is directly related to how far north or south of the equator the observer is.

But it does not change unproportionally. You don't suddenly get longer nights at the pole and not get a similar proportional change elsewhere.

This is old news. I'm surprised you've never experienced it yourself.

Seasonality is not what the claim in the Original Post is about.

if i recall....

the Earth orbit changes over long periods of time...

the orbit gets longer and more eccentric

and the orbit inclination increases or decreases from the 'average/normal'

re: milankovich or something like that said that warm-wet cycles and cold-dry cycles were the result of these variations in the Earth orbit around Sun

I have been noticing that the sun seems to rise in the summer quite a bit farther north than it used to. My house sits almost exactly east-west, so at the most the sun should rise close to directly in line with it; yet the sun seems to move actually north of that east-west line at times close to the summer solstice. Of course, I have no documentation (like a sundial with records going back several years) and memory is a funny thing, so let's look at this logically using *shock* *gasp* science.

First of all, what could account for this observation (which aligns with the source article)? A change in the inclination of the Earth's rotation could do so, obviously. So what else would we expect from this inclination change, should it occur? Well, obviously, the position of the sun in the sky would shift, but wouldn't that screw up GPS?

No, it wouldn't. GPS is based on low-orbit satellites in orbit around the planet. If the Earth's inclination angle shifted, so would everything orbiting the Earth, especially small, man-made, low-orbit satellites. It is likely that the moon itself, which is a massive high-orbit satellite, would even shift in response. After all, the polar axis is the axis of the Earth system, which includes any objects orbiting the planet. It would be possible for something as large and far away as the moon to not be as fully affected by such an inclination shift, but that possibility is far from a certainty.

But, one might ask, would that also not be noticeable by scientists? That would depend on whether scientists were carefully cataloguing solar position. At one time in history, when sundials were used to determine time, it would have been easily noticed, but we do not use sundials today. We use electronic, atomic, and mechanical clocks instead. These would not be affected. I know of no studies that are underway to determine any variations in solar positioning. Such might well exist, but I do not know of any.

Star positions would be affected, though, which makes me initially doubt the idea of an inclination angle shift... of course, astronomers regularly adjust telescopes to account for minor shifts in overall position; they are not looking for the planetary inclination angle (which we already know does shift at times), but rather rely on star positions relative to other stars. We're not talking about a sudden shift, but a slow one over time; a sudden shift would create all kinds of havoc which we have not seen. Thus, it is completely reasonable to assume that such a slow shift over time might not be readily noticed by astronomers.

Would such an inclination shift affect the winds? Not directly; the wind is a disturbance in the atmosphere, which is certainly part of the Earth system. But indirectly might be a different issue... wind (and indeed, all weather) is the result of uneven heating/cooling of the Earth's surface. If the Earth changes its angle to the sun, even slightly, that could indirectly affect the heating pattern of the Earth, changing the prevailing wind patterns.

It would also affect the global weather patterns. Now, I am not convinced this is happening... I have stated as much on several threads that claimed wildly changing weather patterns. However, I cannot deny that this is a belief and not something I can quantify. It may be based in science, but it is still a belief; the possibility does exist.

What I can quantify is the local climate for my area. I have records going back to 1950 of the temperatures obtained from official weather monitoring stations, and a pattern has emerged. That pattern shows a definite variance of temperature. Average temperatures, adjusted for annual expected variations, hit a local minima around 1970 or so. They also seemed to hit a local maxima around 2010-2015 (exact dates are difficult to determine thus far due to the shorter variations that are superimposed). That gives us a period of 80-90 years of variation. It also indicates that we are not far from the local maxima, and thus would now be seeing the most pronounced variations occurring.

An increase in the inclination angle of the planet would actually extend the tropical regions somewhat around the equator, which would equate to an average temperature increase in sub-tropical and temperate regions, while giving a slight decrease in average temperatures at the equator. It would have a similar but opposite effect at the poles... a slight increase in average temperatures at the polar regions, while also driving some cold farther toward the temperate regions. This would also likely lead to an increase in storm intensity, because storms are produced by colliding air masses of different temperatures; the greater the temperature differential between these air masses, the stronger the storms. By bringing more colder air farther south and more warm tropical air farther north (Northern Hemisphere references), such storms would be expected to show an increase in intensity and quantity.

In short, this report does have a definite, non-trivial possibility of being accurate. I wouldn't worry about it, though... the planet has been around a very, very long time and has likely went through several of these cycles. And yet, it is still here, which indicates it will likely also be here for many more such cycles.

I think we have much more pressing matters to worry about.

TheRedneck

a reply to: St Udio

I doubt this has anything to do with the orbit. If accurate, it would have to do with the inclination angle, which is not closely related to the orbit.

Were the orbit to change significantly, we would notice a differential in length of days from one orbital position (season) to the next. Likely, even if the average orbital difference were to remain the same, the length of a year would also deviate from normal; orbital speed is a function of orbital distance and is not linear, so the more eccentricity in the orbit, the more variation the length of a year would be. That would be quite noticeable, but there have been no scientific reports of such an occurrence. It would even affect the feasibility of space travel, since the trajectories involved must be precise and unexpected eccentricity in the orbit would throw off the starting position of the trajectories.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

In short, this report does have a definite, non-trivial possibility of being accurate. I wouldn't worry about it, though... the planet has been around a very, very long time and has likely went through several of these cycles. And yet, it is still here, which indicates it will likely also be here for many more such cycles.

I think we have much more pressing matters to worry about.

TheRedneck

Thank you, TheRedneck, for the thought provoking response. As I mentioned before though, precedence cannot necessarily be applied to the current situation since there is no reason to believe that the technology existed to cause manmade earthquakes, manmade weather patterns or manmade 'natural' disasters until recently. If it is true that there are 150 weather modifications programs in the world, there is no reason to believe that all of those programs are working together. The people who control those programs are more likely to use the programs to oppose each other which would lead to unpredictability.

a reply to: cameos
The original youtube video has comments from two years ago.

a reply to: cameos

As I mentioned before though, precedence cannot necessarily be applied to the current situation since there is no reason to believe that the technology existed to cause manmade earthquakes, manmade weather patterns or manmade 'natural' disasters until recently.

There is no reason to believe such technologies have been developed, either, at least not to the extent that they would be reliably operational. I know this is a favorite conspiracy that many believe it, but I do not. At best, there may well be a few people working on such technology. I see no evidence to make me believe it is operational, though.

If it is true that there are 150 weather modifications programs in the world, there is no reason to believe that all of those programs are working together. The people who control those programs are more likely to use the programs to oppose each other which would lead to unpredictability.

If such were true, I would agree that it is illogical to expect everyone to work together in concert at all times. That is one reason I say I do not believe the technology is available: we're still here. If there were a covert "war" using such disaster tech, we wouldn't be.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, we have many more things to worry about in the world, but this topic is good to be talking about. We cannot change the astronomical and cosmological interactions. All we can do is observe them and try to make sense of them.

We are the proverbial two blind mice examining the elephant.

Thank you for an informative post, as usual.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Antarctica contains one of the few active lava lakes. This video describes current volcanic activity throughout the world: