The sun is exactly where it should be!

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I'm not defending, I'm irritated to see people give in the to blind acceptance of some members here on ATS.

If a new member would post a thread like OP's he would be smacked all over the place.Not giving any links, not giving any real FACTUAL evidence. The op is putting some cool stuff together like Solargraphy, what an expensive word most be scientific. Some pictures of ManhattanHenge,then dragging Stonehenge in the thread.

Again,I pointed out different photo's different angles and heights give no credit what so ever.
Then to get the OP calling me closed minded to not accepting this as evidence " what part of this is not evidence, no real data? "Seriously!

Go to page 2 see my post about his OP.
The only discussion in this thread really is claiming to post so called real hard data when its merely some words and a bunch of pictures of the sun.

And the worst part is that I even have to explain the fact there is nothing scientific about it.

And i'm sorry to say this but the S&F of this thread show what has come of ATS.

reply to post by Cyanhide


Wait, but you're not irritated by people who make grand claims that the poles of earth are in the midst of a shift and that the sun and stars are in a completely different location in our sky than they were years ago?? All without any real evidence?

The OP presented evidence that such claims are bogus.

The sun still rises and sets in the same place as its always has from where I'm standing. Why haven't I seen any dramatic changes?

Give me a break dude, really

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Cyanhide

 

The OP presented evidence that such claims are bogus.
The sun still rises and sets in the same place as its always has from where I'm standing. Why haven't I seen any dramatic changes?

Ah yes,you claim its real evidence because you haven't seen any change yourself? Right.

Ask yourself this ( this is a tricky part) put yourself in the mind of the what you think are Wackjobs for claiming the sun has changed. Now look back to OP and say its REAL HARD scientific data.Don't make me copy paste the definitions again.

Okay bye bye now.

I gave Chad, Cyanide, and Photo props as I read through this thread. I agree CY, if new members were to make a thread like this they would be crucified and the pictures of solargraphy would be considered nothing more than recycled pictures with the dates watermarked with Photofiltre.

On the flip side, there are soo many people on here that go too far from their straightjackets when posting that sometimes you have to listen to the ones that has been here for awhile and has the confidence of the peers to trust their words.

I have read posts by Chad, and I think his proves alot, but I'm not a scientists, I have no idea what if anything is going on. I think some people just want something to go wrong.

We argue too much on here. Everyone has made good points and I believe what everyone has said which makes me in the arena of '' I don't know what the hell to believe ''. I just read most of the time.

reply to post by Cyanhide


But you offer absolutely no evidence to the contrary. You sit there and criticize the people who are at least using common sense and are offering up observable evidence that what these eskimos are claiming doesn't appear to be remotely dramatic, if at all true.

If there is indeed a shift then it must be minute and not entirely observable, or else we'd all be well aware of the dramatic changes.

Originally posted by JAGx1981
I agree CY, if new members were to make a thread like this they would be crucified and the pictures of solargraphy would be considered nothing more than recycled pictures with the dates watermarked with Photofiltre.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Common sense goes a long way around here sometimes regardless of whose thread it is. I'm not giving props to Chad solely for his Gold standard, I could care less about that really. It's about the topic and his presentation. He's offered up a good argument as to why the sun is actually not in the midst of a major shift that no one else has bothered to bring forth. There's common sense behind it which I appreciate.

On the flip side, there are soo many people on here that go too far from their straightjackets when posting that sometimes you have to listen to the ones that has been here for awhile and has the confidence of the peers to trust their words.

This I tend to agree with.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I don't give benefit of the doubt to those with a gold standard either, but I have seen many many threads lost in the bandwidth of time on here that has made awesome points, but has been passed over cause the thread count was low, it really does happen more often than not, your right, not always, but alot.

I get it though, I have read soo many different types of personas on here I get where people come from.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Cyanhide

But you offer absolutely no evidence to the contrary. You sit there and criticize the people who are at least using common sense and are offering up observable evidence that what these eskimos are claiming doesn't appear to be remotely dramatic, if at all true.

I made a clear post on page 2 that pointed out that the OP post was bogus " real scientific data" wise.
Never did I say that the Inuit people where right.Please do read it since I don't want to start explaining it again.

I mean ATS works in hypes,we recently had the HAARP hype, now we have the Inuit hype. It seems to come in waves. I think the Inuit people have more understanding of their surroundings. And yes they most probably understand and know more of stars then us common city folk.

That doesn't mean they can detect stuff that billion dollar telescopes can't.That being said, doesn't mean its not possible.

If there is indeed a shift then it must be minute and not entirely observable, or else we'd all be well aware of the dramatic changes.

I love this comment. I like you actually put the doubt in here, Never did I say the changes would be huge.
As I said before if we would have actual data ,real numbers there will probably be a different's. does it mean its noticeable ?no.


@JAGx1981 thanks,you made a balanced reply

reply to post by Cyanhide


I don't understand what your stance is on this, to be honest.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist is that the Inuit elders have claimed that the sun has been setting over a different mountain peak then it used to, therefore it must have shifted. And as a result the climate and such is changing. I guess they made a claim about the stars not being where they used to.

Do you know if they've been using any measuring tool other than their eye sight to determine this? I mean, how accurate can it be?

Would it be prudent to put our faith in these people that they're being 100% accurate? Where are they making these observations from, do we know? Is it from the same exact spot every time? Couldn't it be that their observation point has shifted therefore giving the appearance that the sun is setting in a different place?

I mean even the ancients from millennia ago realized that they had to erect colossal stone structures to create an observation point that would never move so they could study the movement of the sun, moon, stars.... They knew that the only way to seek accurate observations was to do it from the same exact point every time. So is there any indication that the Inuit utilize some sort or measuring tool or that they have a spot that never changed?

I'm just wondering..

Originally posted by PhotonEffect


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist is that the Inuit elders have claimed that the sun has been setting over a different mountain peak then it used to, therefore it must have shifted. And as a result the climate and such is changing. I guess they made a claim about the stars not being where they used to.

For sake of clarification, 'the elders' have not come to any conclusion. A handful of 'elders' were interviewed, documenting their observations, based basically on memory. The conclusion come to in the documentary is that they are seeing an illusion based on temperature inversion or some such thing:

The scientific explanation is that the warming Arctic air is causing temperature inversions, which in turn cause the light of the sunset to refract so that the sun appears to be setting a few kilometres off-kilter. “There is so much garbage in the air, it’s refraction that’s causing our elders to think our world has tilted,” Kunuk says.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

www.isuma.tv...

It's actually a very interesting documentary, made a few years ago now, that has been GROSSLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT by zOMGers who prefer sensation over truth. And who prefer to avoid talking about climate change, apparently.

I made a thread about it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Well I never dragged the Inuit people in this thread,others did.
I never claimed to believe the sun has changed because some video of an Inuit claiming the stars have moved,As I said this is the newest ATS hype,the Inuit who found youtube.

I do believe that some cultures living among us still have a better connection with nature,easy'r noticing differences in their habitat/surroundings.

But again,my biggest issue with this thread is claiming to post evidence and factual/scientific data when its not.
And then the people who blindly accept it, and I'm not accusing you of that,but some members here hang on every word and idea's some high appraised members post here. with no evidence backing it up.

This thread was made to ridicule the people who believed the sun/earth indeed moved, and yes I say to ridicule because of the so called evidence.

And if you ask for my personal opinion on this whole matter,yes I do believe our earth had some movement, not allot,but some, that would explain some natural occurring events,like midnight solstice to be a day later then the previous years. Also seasons do seem to have shifted a bit,flowers blossoming later then previous years, tree's that lose their leaves early'r. Stuff like this.

And again,this has nothing to do with the Inuit people, Some dude here hijacked the thread with his cross-posting thread.

Originally posted by Cyanhide


And if you ask for my personal opinion on this whole matter,yes I do believe our earth had some movement, not allot,but some, that would explain some natural occurring events,like midnight solstice to be a day later then the previous years.

That has NOTHING to do with our 'earth... moving'. It has to do with our climate warming. The incident you are referring to, where the sun returned two days earlier than expected, was due to a lowering horizon, caused by melting glaciers.

Also seasons do seem to have shifted a bit,flowers blossoming later then previous years, tree's that lose their leaves early'r. Stuff like this.

Again, that points to a warming climate, not a shifting earth.

That has NOTHING to do with our 'earth... moving'. It has to do with our climate warming. The incident you are referring to, where the sun returned two days earlier than expected, was due to a lowering horizon, caused by melting glaciers.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Do you have any links that prove this?

Well,I don't quite believe in climate change myself, I think its a fraud *wink wink*
But the summer solstice that's a day later has nothing to do with "climate change"
ugh that word gives such a bad taste in the mouth. and the thing up Antarctica was also
allot later as previous years ( i tried to search for the thread here on ATS but cant find it).

And the with the Fukushima earthquake the earth moved and our day shortened with a mili something
And when they made that huge Chinese damn the amount of explosions use also created a shift.


on a side-note: I hate this ATS Search,I never find what i'm looking for.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban

That has NOTHING to do with our 'earth... moving'. It has to do with our climate warming. The incident you are referring to, where the sun returned two days earlier than expected, was due to a lowering horizon, caused by melting glaciers.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Do you have any links that prove this?

Yes, I do. Thanks for asking!

Thomas Posch, of the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Vienna, said that a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'. He said as the ice sinks, so to does the horizon, creating the illusion that the sun has risen early

This theory, based on the gradual decline of Greenland's ice sheet, is backed by recent climate studies.

A report by the World Meteorology Organisation shows that temperatures in Greenland have risen around 3C above average over the last year.

It also reported that December was much warmer than usual with rainfall instead of snow recorded for the first time in Kuujjuaq since records began.

It has even been suggested that the sun's early appearance could have an astronomical explanation.

But Wolfgang Lenhardt, director of the department of geophysics at the Central Institute for Meteorology in Vienna, scotched this theory.

He said: 'The constellation of the stars has not changed. If that had happened, there would have been an outcry around the world.

'The data of the Earth's axis and Earth's rotation are monitored continuously and meticulously and we would know if that had happened.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... G
.

www.dailymail.co.uk... X

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Thomas Posch, of the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Vienna, said that a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'.

It´s the most obvious explanation, but it´s not proven.

Semantics maybe, but it´s just a theory, and you would think that they would be able to identify the region that must´ve melted down pretty dramatically in one year.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Thomas Posch, of the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Vienna, said that a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'.

It´s the most obvious explanation, but it´s not proven.



Semantics maybe, but it´s just a theory, and you would think that they would be able to identify the region that must´ve melted down pretty dramatically in one year.

It is indeed a theory. Just one supported by facts, unlike the notion that the poles have shifted, or the stars have moved

As far as 'identifying the region', they are talking about all of Greenland. The melting there is well documented. Are you actually unaware of this??

You seem like maybe you are asking some simple questions that could be answered by a bit of your own research. Are you familiar with the topic at all?

This theory, based on the gradual decline of Greenland's ice sheet, is backed by recent climate studies.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


But that´s what I mean, if it´s well documented, why is it still a theory, you would think that they would be able to prove beyond a doubt how much it melted,, and where and that it was enough to enable the sun to come two days early in a year´s time.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

But that´s what I mean, if it´s well documented, why is it still a theory, you would think that they would be able to prove beyond a doubt how much it melted,, and where and that it was enough to enable the sun to come two days early in a year´s time.

GAH! The fact that glaciers holding up Greenland have melted is not a theory.

As for why they havent zipped up there and immediately found conclusive evidence that melting glaciers lowering the horizon are the cause of the sun 'arriving two days earlier' in a very short period of time only highlights how little you understand about the scientific process. The theory is one based on all available evidence, mixed in with common sense. The 'claim' (not a theory) ht it is due to pole shift or the stars moving is not based on anything reasonable.

GAH! The fact that glaciers holding up Greenland have melted is not a theory.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I´m talking about the theory of the melt causing the early sun, that theory, obviously.

As for why they havent zipped up there and immediately found conclusive evidence that melting glaciers lowering the horizon are the cause of the sun 'arriving two days earlier' in a very short period of time only highlights how little you understand about the scientific process.

What is to understand? I just think that if the whole of greenland had sunk, or certain ridges had melted enuogh to make such a big difference in the sun´s timing, it would be very obvious and easy to pinpoint..

Do you think they are still working on it then?

The theory is one based on all available evidence, mixed in with common sense. The 'claim' (not a theory) ht it is due to pole shift or the stars moving is not based on anything reasonable.

Well, I wasn´t bringing that up, was I. My common sense tells me that melting ice cannot be the cause for the sun coming two days early, in the time of one year, without it leaving a clear indicator of it being the cause of the phenomenon.

I don´t know what to think about the other theories either. I think it still isn´t solved.