Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth's "WOBBLE"

This is reminiscent of the first sunrise of the season in Greenland being a couple of days early which boiled down to the mountains being a little less high due to less snow on them, no axial shifts involved at all. Northern hemisphere people have an ideal reference point in Polaris (north star) being aligned with the earth's axis so, if Polaris shifts, that's the way to be certain when it starts describing a larger circle over a day. My GPS is a good reference too, when it starts locating me as being in the neighbour's backyard I might take heed

Could the Inuit observations also be attributed to shorter than 'normal' mountains because of less snow/faster melting?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I can't say I have noticed any difference, but if the Inuits are saying it, I think we need to listen.

...and when the Inuits get drunk and rape their younger relatives we should? Oh right. Different case. Inuits have a really high rate of familial incest and alcoholism.

Oh well right? At least they know when the Earth wobbles, maybe cause its out of tune with their own wobble.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

On an unrelated note, we should listen to the Chinese when it gets really cold, because they have dragons to heat up the Earth when it needs it.

yes,, speaking of which,,



Unique phenomenon occurs in alaska

a reply to: eriktheawful

The Inuit are people that spent SO MUCH TIME OUTSIDE ABOVE THE ARCTIC CIRCLE that they can routinely handle -30 to -40F ( real temperature ) conditions and routinely have skin exposed at temperatures of -60F( in case this is lost on most ...most urban dwellers spend less than 4% of their time directly exposed to the environment( and that 'environment is mostly artificial), Inuits spend on the order of 60% of their time dealing with environment ( that is almost entirely natural) . They have NO CITY LIGHT POLLUTION whatsoever and the environment they live in is SO extreme ,NOT paying attention to the sun, the stars, and the wind ( because that is their "internet"), during any given season is a certain death sentence .

Perhaps in the spirit of scientific inquiry we should not dismiss the observations of the Inuit , but rather separate the observations ( that these people need to use correctly to survive ) from their interpretations ( they are seeing the facts ,but anyone can observe; 'this car won't start" , but very few can use that observation to tell you WHY IT WON'T start)

In point,I do not believe the earth has had an axial tilt ( there are better explanations) , but if it had using celestial markers as "evidence" based on parallax ( which you are ) is not a great example of disproof.

Unfortunately the earth does not orbit polaris ( For that matter the sun does not orbit polaris ( and cygnus was the 'last' pole star) it orbits serius about every 26,000 years)

The sun is one AU ( 92,955,807 miles away) , polaris is 27 446 041.2 AU's away ( 2,551,268,916,935,061 miles away), if the earth's axis changed by one degree this would change it's parallax to the sun by .00000001% and it's parallax to polaris by .000000000000004%
...meaning an extra hour increase of sunlight at the inuit latitude ( what ever the cause ) would need a precision measurement of polaris ( in the same 24 hour period , especially from lower lattitudes) with an error of less than one one hundred millionth (.000000001%) of one percent of accuracy to notice. given atmospheric distortions , vagarities in the chandler wobble,and several other factors...perhaps we should take the primary OBSERVATIONS of the inuit as a base line observation and postulate from there

I don't know what I am doing wrong, but the link is not working properly:

______beforeitsnews/space/2014/12/pople-president-meets-with-anninauki-return-of-planet-x-2485954.html

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The eye piece used in the small aligning telescope in the telescope mount has reticles, depending on who made the eye piece and when, which will show where to place Polaris. It's to take into account for precession.

While our eyes can't see any huge change (because precession is something like 26,000 years), zooming in with a telescope will show slight movement.

RA and Dec's do change. If you use coordinates that were written down prior to the year 2000, those coordinates are referred to as the B1950 Epoch. Since 2000, we use the J2000 Epoch.

It's to account for precession.

BTW - you're not nit picking, you're asking questions, which is great!

As you know (having read many of your posts on Climate Change, heh), our sun drives our climate. The northern latitudes receive sun light at a much more oblique angle than areas closer to the equator.

That of course is a major part (but not all) that drives the climate in those areas. In order for the climate to change due to a change in angle of the sunlight, that angle would have to change a lot. More than precession allows for.

So can the position of the sun rising and setting change and the position of the stars change due to the Earth's "wobble" or precession? Of course.

But that change is very small over a very long period of time. And you're only going to notice it with things like telescopes or a sextant, and comparing it to previously recorded data. You'll see that over the last century these things have changed. But by very small amounts.

Someone "eye balling it" with just their eyes are not going to see that change....

Both you and SonOfTheLawOfOne have added a lot of value and quality discussion to this thread so thanks for that.

I hope you both earned applause for adding quality material to the boards.

Do Mods still receive applauds?

a reply to: UnBreakable

This is old news, from way back before 2011, Its a video with the Inuit talking about the sun rising in a different time/place is an hour long global warming/climate change film:

www.isuma.tv...

Nunavut-based director Zacharias Kunuk (Atanarjuat The Fast Runner) and researcher and filmmaker Dr. Ian Mauro (Seeds of Change) have teamed up with Inuit communities to document their knowledge and experience regarding climate change. This new documentary, the world’s first Inuktitut language film on the topic, takes the viewer “on the land” with elders and hunters to explore the social and ecological impacts of a warming Arctic.

And the thread where I addressed this and how the sun is still exactly where it should be:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

How ironic that you say that the rest of the world is distracted by the "CO2 AGW meme" when the Inuit that were spoken to were part of a global warming documentary.

although we have been told that CO2 is sensitive and has a big response to heating that may not be the case in reality .We were fed the notion of the green house effect ,but the earth is not a closed system like a standard green house .Kind of reminds me of the notion of peek oil back in the 70's .I am not convinced that fossil fuels are from fossils ,at least the deep oil stuff .

The largest part of the earth is the oceans and we have only recently been able to start to discover them at depth .Our ability to measure their heat at present ,although good ,we lack the coverage . It's like walking around the outside edge of a massive forest and thinking we know what is living and thriving in the deeper parts . Science although good at what they do ,are always finding new things and ways of measuring stuff . When you hear that the science is settled you can just grin and say ummm .
a reply to: Boscov

I find this is a great example of the old world versus the new world. The old based on man's observations and intuition and the new based solely on scientific instrumentation.

I also noted the points about how the Inuit behave and wondered if the people who made those comments would like to elaborate about how their own politicians and people so-called above the law get away with pretty much the same practices or the rape of young people? These are irrelevant points but if a group of people do see something different, perhaps the scientists should be listening and checking. For all we know the scientific navigation tools we are sold may not be as accurate or set to other settings and the Inuit may be onto something. We know we are going through massive change and anything that can help us deal with this by the tool of being prepared by being forewarned is helpful so say the least.

We have lost a lot of our intuitive linkage to our planet and scientists and corporations like to belittle any opposition to the research they are doing to get more publicity and accolade. So anything linking natural science or that simple 'knowing' is put down. Perhaps working in tandem once the crackpots are out of the pict ure would be better?

Well they live in the arctic and so the ice is a part of the AGW meme .Not only ice but Polar Bears and any other thing they can put into the mix while leaving out very crucial facts that go against the standard model . Considering that it has been much warmer in the past in that area with the Viking settlements and their ability to farm much earlier then before man was contributing to the CO2 budget contradicts ,what is claimed today .

Take Polar Bear's and Al Gores inconvenient Truth and they should be near instinction but the Polar bear population is doing great today all the while CO2 levels have been climbing . There is probably a good reason why some of the first explores were looking for a route through the North West passage because the Ice may have been much less then it is today and someone had made it through before .

In fact going by recent data on the ice coverage up there now ,it seems to be recovering ,while the Antarctic is showing the largest extent sense we have been measuring it . Dont forget either that there are old maps showing the land mass under the ice that we have only come to see with the advent of sonar . It may have been that the Northern Ice sheet that once was has moved to the South . If that was the case then it could be a long cycle that moves back and forth .

a reply to: Chadwickus

originally posted by: Tardacus
High tech sattilites are ok, I guess, for trying to figure out what nature is doing but actually observing nature year after year is a much more accurate way of knowing if nature is changing.

Right. One is human speculation based on folk wisdom and observations that are made without proper scientific context. The other is the most precise, advanced, and accurate device we have, and was designed specifically designed for gathering the pertinent "observations". The latter also uses proper scientific procedure and is subject to peer review. The former is the equivalent of "storms coming, feel it in ma bones."

a reply to: Phage

The Inuit describe the sun rising in a normal location but setting more south. If the Earth's tilt were involved both sunrise and sunset would be dislocated, not just the sunset. This is an important clue about what has been observed. It’s interesting that the same observations have been made by others. Those others are scientists who have described the effect as a sort of mirage caused by the encroachment of warm air into arctic regions.

I think you probably hit the nail on the head here.
More than likely it is the cause, if not all of it, a big part.
The Inuit know the environment they have been living in for 1000's of years is changing in ways they have never seen.

That would be the bottom line I guess.

Thanks for the information!
I was wondering what would cause that kind of an observation.
They would not make something like that up.

star for u!

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The eye piece used in the small aligning telescope in the telescope mount has reticles, depending on who made the eye piece and when, which will show where to place Polaris. It's to take into account for precession.

While our eyes can't see any huge change (because precession is something like 26,000 years), zooming in with a telescope will show slight movement.

RA and Dec's do change. If you use coordinates that were written down prior to the year 2000, those coordinates are referred to as the B1950 Epoch. Since 2000, we use the J2000 Epoch.

It's to account for precession.

BTW - you're not nit picking, you're asking questions, which is great!

As you know (having read many of your posts on Climate Change, heh), our sun drives our climate. The northern latitudes receive sun light at a much more oblique angle than areas closer to the equator.

That of course is a major part (but not all) that drives the climate in those areas. In order for the climate to change due to a change in angle of the sunlight, that angle would have to change a lot. More than precession allows for.

So can the position of the sun rising and setting change and the position of the stars change due to the Earth's "wobble" or precession? Of course.

But that change is very small over a very long period of time. And you're only going to notice it with things like telescopes or a sextant, and comparing it to previously recorded data. You'll see that over the last century these things have changed. But by very small amounts.

Someone "eye balling it" with just their eyes are not going to see that change....

Both you and SonOfTheLawOfOne have added a lot of value and quality discussion to this thread so thanks for that.

I hope you both earned applause for adding quality material to the boards.

Do Mods still receive applauds?

Nope.

Once you become a mod, you no longer can receive applause.

a reply to: Silverlok

I don't suffer from light pollution. I live WAY out in the woods.

So do millions of other people who do pay attention to what is in the sky.

These elders are declaring that celestial objects are not where they are suppose to be. The rest of us that DO observe the night sky and the sun have not seen any indication that this is true.



View of the night sky where I live.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Excellent thread.

It would be interesting to see where this leads, and why exactly they are only seeing the change at sunset.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
All the while the rest of the world is distracted by the CO2 AGW meme and what we must do to correct it .I would put more faith in the elders figuring out what they have to do to survive what seems to be a new (kind of) ice age .Too soon to tell how far the fluctuations in the earths climate may play out or for how long but we humans have a built in ability to survive even if it requires us eating our own . a reply to: UnBreakable

Not to say they don't have solid input regarding their region, but as far as science goes a localized group and localized experience in no way can be used to extrapolate what is going on across the world. This is a classic logical fallacy, i.e. over-extrapolation.

So no, we should not put more stock in their experience than globalized data, countless scientists, and studies in EVERY region of the world.

I am not native leader but over the last 50 years I too have noticed that the sun is further north and not so far south as it was in years before.

The monthly movement of the moon also has changed. Depending on where you are in 2011-12 the moon stayed more the north even in its southernly positioning than it had for many years. This last year 2013-14 I have not seen the moon as much as we had lots of days with clouds at night.

There is a wobble of the earth, the wobble of the Solar system and a wobble to our galaxy that all needs to be considered. one of the reasons we don't see the sun spot activity as in the past is a portion of the sun that faces to the suns north pole is facing us more and the spots are facing away from us causing cooler weather patterns.

in the wobbles of the earth, solar system and galaxy there is also the orbit upon how each of these travel in and around each other as well. All this will affect how the sun and moon look and are positioned. However this is not the first time this has happened and NASA know this.

Remember the elders are only 50-70 years old. It would be nice to have records that go back say 700-1000 years or more.

Why stop at the Inuits?

The ancient Australians have one of the oldest cultures on earth, and they also have prime real estate when it comes to observing the night sky so it would make sense that their elders should be consulted as well.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I can't say I have noticed any difference, but if the Inuits are saying it, I think we need to listen.

...and when the Inuits get drunk and rape their younger relatives we should? Oh right. Different case. Inuits have a really high rate of familial incest and alcoholism.



Oh well right? At least they know when the Earth wobbles, maybe cause its out of tune with their own wobble.



.

.

.

.

.

.

.



On an unrelated note, we should listen to the Chinese when it gets really cold, because they have dragons to heat up the Earth when it needs it.

You're right. From now on I'll only believe NASA because they only tell the truth, I won't even think of entertaining another viewpoint or observation.