I agree with the Inuit people , The sun is definetly moving over a different path in the sky . See M

I agree with the OP, the Inuit people, gardeners, farmers, herbologists that gather their own, fishermen, people who observe the first light of the crescent moon for religious reasons, people who observe the sky for signs of the 2nd coming, people who seek the Udumbara flower, honorable people who sometimes post strange videos and documents on the web, film makers and advertisers who encrypt strange messages and symbols and the many people on this thread and others that describe the sun, moon and stars taking a different path in the sky.

In my observation this path is erratic and chaotic. It can't be counted on to be the same week to week or sometimes even day to day. I get a feeling of peace from reading someone describe a personal observational account of these events. It's like the news hour for me. It's like something real that I can count on.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I agree with the OP, the Inuit people, gardeners, farmers, herbologists that gather their own, fishermen, people who observe the first light of the crescent moon for religious reasons, people who observe the sky for signs of the 2nd coming, people who seek the Udumbara flower, honorable people who sometimes post strange videos and documents on the web, film makers and advertisers who encrypt strange messages and symbols and the many people on this thread and others that describe the sun, moon and stars taking a different path in the sky.

In my observation this path is erratic and chaotic. It can't be counted on to be the same week to week or sometimes even day to day. I get a feeling of peace from reading someone describe a personal observational account of these events. It's like the news hour for me. It's like something real that I can count on.

Neither 'the inuit people', nor any of the other groups you mention are in any kind of agreement on that conclusion whatsoever.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by JonU2


So you're saying that any eyewitness evidence presented on here is to be dismissed? Let's face it, if we take your skepticism just a little bit further, even if photos are presented then you could dismiss them for any number of reasons.

Dismissed? No. Just taken for what it is. Anecdotal evidence. This thread is also full of people giving anecdotal evidence hat contradicts the claims of the OP. Are you ignoring them, but favoring the ones that support your own pre-conceived notions?

Anecdotal evidence is great and all, but it is 'proof' of nothing.

Get off your damn high horse and pay attention! Almost no one is claiming that the earth has actually moved -- almost no one is claiming that this is a universal phenomenon! No one is denying the anecdotal evidence of the sun being in the right place! The only people not included in that "almost no one" are people who aren't actually contributing to the discussion, but saying confusing things about "earth changes".

I think that people who have specially designed gardens to receive sunlight, and have succeeded in one position year after year, know what they're talking about when they say that the location's not getting any sunlight. Could there be other explanations than any actual changes? Sure. A new tree? Unusual cloud cover? Something we're not thinking of? Or, yes, user error. I do tend to fall into that latter camp, but I think that the anecdotal evidence is significant enough to call into question the mere possibility of an Inuit-irrelevant event.

No one with any modicum of actual engagement with this conversation is actually saying that there's been a big, major change, or denying the overwhelming evidence that there hasn't been one.

Originally posted by FabiCan
reply to post by tinker9917

 

Hi Tinker9917, I'm not sure of the exact details, but I've just done a little research and it seems that the earth will get to a stage where it begin to rotate clockwise. There might even be some scientific evidence to support the fact that the earth's rotation is slowly slowing down and will get to a stage before it grinds to a halt and then reverses.

There is no evidence for any chance that the earth would reverse. There is no known physical mechanism by which that could happen. The Earth could slowly be slowing, but it's not by any amount that we'll ever be affected by it.

Originally posted by Solasis
Or, yes, user error. I do tend to fall into that latter camp, but I think that the anecdotal evidence is significant enough to call into question the mere possibility of an Inuit-irrelevant event.

Sure, it's possible. Nonetheless, I take the anecdotal accounts saying they have seen nothing out of the ordinary and compare them with the ones claiming they do see something odd, and i balance them out.

i like the view from up here, thankyouverymuch

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Solasis
Or, yes, user error. I do tend to fall into that latter camp, but I think that the anecdotal evidence is significant enough to call into question the mere possibility of an Inuit-irrelevant event.

Sure, it's possible. Nonetheless, I take the anecdotal accounts saying they have seen nothing out of the ordinary and compare them with the ones claiming they do see something odd, and i balance them out.

I am indeed categorically denying that there has been a worldwide change. It is patently false and impossible that the sun is actually in a different position in relation to the entire Earth. That is all that can be absolutely determined by the competition of the anecdata.

What I'm saying is possible -- though unlikely! -- is that there are localised phenomena that could be causing the sun to appear to be, for all intents and purposes, in a different local position. Undetected seismic activity, as proposed some pages back, is one of those distant possibilities.

For the record, I'm taking a cue from Charles Fort. He basically took this same approach; I wouldn't hesitate to call these observations Forteana. If it were still simply people saying "I saw the sun in another place!" then, yes. I would agree wholeheartedly about the patent absurdity of this. But, again, enough of those Garden cases have popped up to make me curious.

reply to post by Solasis
Sometimes we just have to walk away from threads like this and try not to look back. They take on a life of their own and, no matter what, they'll believe the Sun is moving around the place until they find something more interesting.

Last year it was New Zealand moving around. Next year...who knows?

reply to post by Solasis


Hey Solasis,

A localized continental shift is not so bad a theory, I for one would like to see some solid explanation, with regard to the phenomenon.

And thanks Phage for clearing the ''Optical Illusion", starred.

Salosis, I admire your fight for the truth.

Peace.

reply to post by JonU2


You are right, I did read further into the thread and perhaps I was a little too hasty. Though to be fair, while you have come to the conclusion that the earth is still in the same position relative to the Sun, many others have not.

The Sun will not be in the same place at the same time during summer, it will move considerably during the months obviously. How is everyone so sure they are not comparing a moment in June from a moment in August?

The only thing I see going on here, based on my knowledge and observations is observer bias, and false memory. Most the people in his thread seem to have had a 'Now that you mention it' type experience. The mere act of remembering will actually change and alter your memories, and it is very easy to remember details that simply did not exist. In fact, just reading a description of someone elses experience creates similar memories to if you were actually there.

It is entirely possible the Sun was shining on your garden many days this summer. We don't tend to notice things when they are as we expect, they simply get ignored. Then one day when you notice your garden is in the shade, it is easy for it to seem as if it has been in the shade the whole time, because your mind didn't have any use to make detailed memories of all the other times.

There's very little to no evidence, other than anicdotal claims to support this theory, while there's mountains of evidence that is publically available that contradicts this, and the experiments are easily to duplicate. This thread is based on a flawed premise. The sun is not moving in a different path across the sky. That is verifiable. There are also many people who have paid attention to how the Sun travels at different parts of the year.

There are many theories that would explain why one person sees the sun as having moved while others dont. The problem with those theories is that they would only account for minuscule changes. There is nothing that would explain the Sun being up to 30 degrees higher than normal for one person and not other. The fact that these claims are already so grossly exaggerated kills any credibility it might have had. I don't mean to be condescending, i really don't. I am just completely amazed that so many people can look at this and draw the conclusions they have. Is that what happens when you hang around here too long?

I mean, I like this forum, I think it discusses some interesting topics, but there's a reason most people would not accept any of these claims and think you are crazy. You use 'subjective' evidence to make claims against objective facts, and when real evidence to the contrary that is easily replicated comes in, it is either glossed over completely or just magically debunked just because they said it was so, or they 'know' it's not true. Sorry, but you have to realize that what you have seen or expierenced is entirely subjective and cannot be substantiated. It can't hold a candle to objective data. The human brain is ruled by emotions and our perceptions change over time. We would all do well to realize this, and place less emphasis on things we think we have seen unless we have objective data from the situation, or can replicate the event.

As an example, there are vacations I remember taking when I was younger. I was literally there in my mind. But everyone else on the trip tells me I wasn't there. Over the years, from hearing others stories and looking at photos, my mind created a very vivid picture and inserted me into the center of it, as it tends to do. But I would be an absolute fool to argue that my subjective experience somehow refutes all the objective data and others accounts, (Please note, I use the term 'you' as a generalization, this is not directed towards anyone in particular)

Two Words for you. Geodedic Precession. It's taught in high school science. It explains why the Sun appears to take a different path from time to time. But, that's all there is, no mystery here.

reply to post by CosmosKid


This has already been covered.

Geodetic Precession takes 26,000 years to complete a full cycle.

There's no way this can be noticed within a human lifetime, or even several hundred lifetimes.

I posted this in another thread on the topic, but got no response. Does anybody own a sextant? If not maybe I should go buy one. I went looking but they cost around $3,000 for a “real” sextant. Any way the question goes like this. Take your sextant to a spot that was surveyed back in the day. Any light house should do. Then take your sextant readings, and compare it to the surveyed data. While you are at it take a magnetic compass reading and a GPS reading to see which of these readings, if any, no longer match up.

sorry..

I don't really pay much attention to where the sun is in the sky... I just know that the sun is a completely different color and intensity. It used to be more orange, and now it is more white. I cannot go outside at all without sunglasses on. My eyes start to water too much. It's also alot hotter, it's winter here at the moment and the sun literally burns one's skin.

In full agreement with the OP.

As weird as the whole concept is, I know one thing - Orion's belt used to be visible from my back yard all the years I've lived here, and now it is only visible from the front yard when it is available for us here in Indiana, US to view. From my vantage point it became visible in my backyard as night fell and the moved across the roof of the house and I couldn't see it after a time. Now, it's starting point in the sky is over my house as night falls and is obscurred from the back yard entirely. I don't really know what else to say other than you explain that to me?

OB has always been my starting point in the sky to stargaze because it's easily recognizable, and I just work my way out to the other constellations from there. I regularly go outside each evening and spend an average of 6-8 hours a week stargazing. Why? I enjoy it. Living in a concrete jungle as I feel I do, nothing beats getting in touch with nature by being outside late at night. So subjectively, I had this experience before I heard about the Inuit people and their opinions on the sun.

I thought it was strange but racked my brain trying to come up with a reason why my perception could be at fault due to known movement cycles of the earth, but I don't really think it is. It's not logical, and yet somehow here it is, and people are noticing. No great public declaration that we are right, but still I will be watching OB much more closely this year and trying to figure out what is going on. I hadn't personally noticed anything about the Sun's position, but then again I'm a nightwatcher not a day one. All I can say is it feels hotter and brighter as others have said, but that could be a number of things that have nothing to do with a tilting of the earth. (Which is what I believe must have happened if our view of things has moved a bit.)

There is as much at fault with being a super-skeptic as there is with being overly-gullible. So some people believe everything odd they hear, and others nothing, simply because it is indeed odd. We have to keep an open mind about these things. One thing that is likely confusing those watching the sky is they will use starting points - they will start at one point and continue to work their way across the constellations. Even if our perception of them has moved a bit from our vantage point, all of the stars are still there in relation to each other. One star is still the same distance from another star the same as it was ten or 100 years ago, so looking at it in that way nothing has changed at all. Any questions about their vantage point would make them feel foolish and they will just assume they are wrong, or missed some natural phenomenon and either not mention it or, not even let it register. Something to consider.

Originally posted by Orion75
As weird as the whole concept is, I know one thing - Orion's belt used to be visible from my back yard all the years I've lived here, and now it is only visible from the front yard when it is available for us here in Indiana, US to view. From my vantage point it became visible in my backyard as night fell and the moved across the roof of the house and I couldn't see it after a time. Now, it's starting point in the sky is over my house as night falls and is obscurred from the back yard entirely. I don't really know what else to say other than you explain that to me?

OB has always been my starting point in the sky to stargaze because it's easily recognizable, and I just work my way out to the other constellations from there. I regularly go outside each evening and spend an average of 6-8 hours a week stargazing. Why? I enjoy it. Living in a concrete jungle as I feel I do, nothing beats getting in touch with nature by being outside late at night. So subjectively, I had this experience before I heard about the Inuit people and their opinions on the sun.

I thought it was strange but racked my brain trying to come up with a reason why my perception could be at fault due to known movement cycles of the earth, but I don't really think it is. It's not logical, and yet somehow here it is, and people are noticing. No great public declaration that we are right, but still I will be watching OB much more closely this year and trying to figure out what is going on. I hadn't personally noticed anything about the Sun's position, but then again I'm a nightwatcher not a day one. All I can say is it feels hotter and brighter as others have said, but that could be a number of things that have nothing to do with a tilting of the earth. (Which is what I believe must have happened if our view of things has moved a bit.)

There is as much at fault with being a super-skeptic as there is with being overly-gullible. So some people believe everything odd they hear, and others nothing, simply because it is indeed odd. We have to keep an open mind about these things. One thing that is likely confusing those watching the sky is they will use starting points - they will start at one point and continue to work their way across the constellations. Even if our perception of them has moved a bit from our vantage point, all of the stars are still there in relation to each other. One star is still the same distance from another star the same as it was ten or 100 years ago, so looking at it in that way nothing has changed at all. Any questions about their vantage point would make them feel foolish and they will just assume they are wrong, or missed some natural phenomenon and either not mention it or, not even let it register. Something to consider.

edit on 1-8-2011 by Orion75 because: A letter "Y" jumped from the middle of one word to another, and I had to rescue it to it's proper place.

Deny Ignorance

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Deny Ignorance

edit on 1-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)

This isn't exactly what I was talking about, I've known for years that the stars progress through the sky throughout the year, (as I did note in the first paragraph) but the stars are supposed to be fixed in their location from year-to-year. The position of say Sirus should be the same August 1st 1811 or August 1st 2011 from St. Louis. It's not the yearly progession that is being observed to have changed, it is the starting points of it's yearly progression that was not usual. So the position of stars vary throughout the year, but not from year-to-year.

reply to post by Orion75

At this time of year Orion's belt rises just before dawn and sets before the Sun. It isn't visible in the night sky.

If you are seeing Orion's belt during the summer something is definitely wrong. Or you're not seeing Orion's belt. I'm not seeing it.

Same goes for Sirius.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Orion75

 

At this time of year Orion's belt rises just before dawn and sets before the Sun. It isn't visible in the night sky.

If you are seeing Orion's belt during the summer something is definitely wrong. Or you're not seeing Orion's belt. I'm not seeing it.

edit on 8/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No, I am not seeing it right now, I observed this last year/ this year when it was still visible. Going to quote myself here a moment:

""As weird as the whole concept is, I know one thing - Orion's belt used to be visible from my back yard all the years I've lived here, and now it is only visible from the front yard when it is available for us here in Indiana, US to view. From my vantage point it became visible in my backyard as night fell and the moved across the roof of the house and I couldn't see it after a time. Now, it's starting point in the sky is over my house as night falls and is obscurred from the back yard entirely.""

I'd thought enough past tense language was used but I hadn't considered it would confuse people if I didn't point that one out directly.

reply to post by Orion75

I see.
But you did talk about Sirius being visible on August 1.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Orion75

 

I see.
But you did talk about Sirius being visible on August 1.

edit on 8/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It was just an example. You *can* see Sirus in the summer since it is so bright but only very early I believe.