Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A WARNING from Inuit People: Sun Wrong, Stars Wrong, Earth Tilting On Axis!

page: 24
165
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by soficrow
 



It amazes me that people are questioning these elders perceptions. And disgusts me too.

The Inuit are NOT offering any 'scientific' explanations - just their observations. Ignore them at your own peril.

It's not a matter of questioning perspectives. It's a matter of questioning the conclusion that their observations have anything to do with the Earth's axis. And they don't. The Inuit elders may have noticed a change in the apparent location of the sunset but the Earth's rotational axis hasn't shifted.


Posters here have been questioning the elders perceptions. …Your source acknowledges and respects those perceptions - and explains many as refraction, caused by light bending differently through hot and cold air.



a warming northern atmosphere has actually altered the visual landscape of the Arctic, which has caused the sun, moon and stars to appear out of position in the sky. An optical tilt of the earth caused by refraction rather than a physical one!

…In 52 years, the sun has shifted southward by 19 KM, which is a 44 degree movement relative to the position of the observer. This is an example of the massive visual shift that elders across the north have observed, leading them to each conclude that the earth has tilted.


Again, whatever "explanations" might be offered, ignore the Inuit observations at your own peril.

...It might be beneficial to discuss whether or not 'refraction' explains the change in daylight hours (from 1 to 2 hours for hunting), and the observation that the sun is higher overhead (refraction is more relevant at the horizon).




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
[mo



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Again, whatever "explanations" might be offered, ignore the Inuit observations at your own peril.

The sun's true position IS normal. There is no question about that. Yesterday afternoon I used my telescope to view the sun and measure its position with astrometric precision simply by fixing it on the sun, recording its position on video, and then disengaging the tracking and allowing the earth's rotation to rotate known stars through the field of view a couple of hours later while the telescope remained stationary. Knowing the exact interval of time from the moment the telescope's tracking was shut off to the moment the stars passed through the field of view allowed me to determine the sun's exact position, which was exactly where it should have been.

I had disengaged the tracking at 6:41:45 PM eastern time, and this was the corresponding frame of the video, showing the limb of the sun that would later be used to determine its exact position:
i319.photobucket.com...
After the sun set enough that it was safe, I removed the solar filter and waited. At 9:19:21 PM eastern time, a series of fairly bright stars streaked into the field of view, producing this image:
i319.photobucket.com...
Directly merging the two images with 50% opacity allows me to determine with exact precision whether or not the sun was where it should have been in the sky. Overlaying the merged image onto Stellarium set to the exact same points in time at my location shows definitively that the sun was exactly where it should have been:
i319.photobucket.com...
Here's the full two and a half hour raw video from the telescope, flipped vertically for simplicity in order to compensate for the mirroring that occurs in the telescope:

So, in summation, the sun is exactly where it should be in the sky. Any anomaly observed by the inuit must either be due to faulty observation or atmospheric factors.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
this i had taken back in 2006 this time around;


and this was taken a few weeks back (sorry for the bad quality, this was a quicky with my old mobile)


both pictures were taken in my hometown down here in southeast of marmara, approx. around the same spot.

the coast is clear. all is well.
edit on 11-9-2011 by jamsession because: image link



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by soficrow
Again, whatever "explanations" might be offered, ignore the Inuit observations at your own peril.

The sun's true position IS normal.

…Any anomaly observed by the inuit must either be due to faulty observation or atmospheric factors.


Given the Inuit's intimate familiarity with their environment and its landmarks, and oral traditions regarding same, I sincerely doubt their observations are faulty. Given that you are being truthful about your observations, then "atmospheric factors" may be the correct explanation for the Inuit observations.

If so, then why are "atmospheric factors" changing the Arctic environment so dramatically? Why are the "atmospheric effects" at the North Pole so very different now than in the past? Why is it happening, now, and never before in the Inuit's oral history? What does it mean?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
If so, then why are "atmospheric factors" changing the Arctic environment so dramatically? Why are the "atmospheric effects" at the North Pole so very different now than in the past? Why is it happening, now, and never before in the Inuit's oral history? What does it mean?

Our own historical sources show that this has happened in the past even more dramatically than it has lately. 400 years ago, Gerritt de Veer recorded the following account of Novaya Zemlya causing the sun to rise two weeks - weeks, not days - earlier than it should have in the arctic.


In the next place, Gerrit de Veer states explicitly that he and two of his companions "saw the edge of the sun" on the 24th of January, and that on the 27th of that month they "all went forth and saw the sunne in his full round-nesse a little above the horizon"; and again, that on 31st they "went out and saw the sunne shine cleare"; and lastly, on the 8th of February, they "saw the sun rise south-east, and went down south south-west." On the intervening days, the weather being cloudy or otherwise unfavorable, they had no opportunity of observing the sun.

Page cliii from "The three voyages of William Barentz to the Arctic regions"

The sun wasn't supposed to rise above the horizon at all at de Veer's location until February 9th. As for why the Inuit have never noticed this phenomenon before... though it is possible that Novaya Zemlya is occurring more frequently now than in the past due to some form of cyclical climatic change, why they never noticed it before now is actually of little concern to me. I don't put them on a pedestal simply because they're Inuit and know how to determine the seasons and navigate by the stars. Given that we DO have historical information about it there is no question that it has happened in the past, even more dramatically than it has recently. I would like to see a proper study done to monitor the phenomenon from the arctic with proper equipment and precision measurements, but that's not necessarily something you can just throw together on a dime.

Even without such a study though I can tell you right now that there's nothing wrong with earth's axial tilt (which I've also measured directly in a separate test) or the position of the sun to within about an arcsecond, the resolution of my scope (which is orders of magnitude higher than the limits of human vision).



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Looks like a great book. Thanks.
…Searched for your quote, but the message kept saying "No matches." …Maybe a glitch in their search program? For those who are interested, the full text online: The three voyages of William Barentz to the Arctic regions.



As for why the Inuit have never noticed this phenomenon before... why they never noticed it before now is actually of little concern to me.


Hmm. Sounds rather disrespectful and presumptious on your part. You must be very young. …Do you have an equal disregard for all ancient cultures? A similar disinterest in unravelling the truths contained in any myth?

BTW - Have you ever heard of the Kogi, and the BBC documentary about them? From the Heart of the World. Check it out. Very interesting.



edit on 11/9/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Meekbot2000
 


Go ahead and laugh all you want. I live in Alaska and have most of my life. While I am not a native I see the changes too... Not only in where things are but also the timberlines on the mountain tops, the plants and insects that never use to be here... And the way the animals behave.

Most people live in a landscaped man made environment and are very disconnected from nature....even if they *go hiking* If your food and your livelihood and your ability to stay warm depended on paying attention you would not be laughing

I would imagine you wont be laughing long



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 
Perhaps it is because the ones with the money to keep news quiet do not want people to survive? Think about it for a minute and let it sink in.

Most people know and some even harp on Agenda 21 etc etc etc, so why would TPTB want the unnecessary to survive and use up resources they feel entitled to, especially if the truth is there aren't enough for everyone with the current world population?

If no one is prepared, with understanding about what is actually happening then more will die and leave more resources for them


*They* only need enough little people for workers to keep things going for THEM.

Why would they care about you and me?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Hmm. Sounds rather disrespectful and presumptious on your part. You must be very young. …Do you have an equal disregard for all ancient cultures?

Certainly not. I just happen to have some experience at performing these kinds of measurements at a very high resolution, and in hearing the testimony of some of these elders and the way they report the perceived differences in the sun's position, it raises red flags of poor methodology. Again, I do not exclude the possibility that they actually are using proper methodology and detecting something truly different in apparent position due to refraction, indeed the Greenland report this past year supports that notion, but I do not grant them extra credibility simply because of their status as Inuit. I know that offends you, it's politically incorrect on this forum, etc, but I simply do not care. I will say what I mean and mean what I say, even if it stands to hurt me. What is needed is an objective, empirical study of the amount of atmospheric refraction up there over a considerable period of time, but unfortunately such a thing in such a harsh climate would probably cost a considerable amount of money.

My interest is in monitoring the motions and positions of objects in our solar system, including our planet around our sun. That's one of the most enjoyable things in the world for me, even though the results are always predictable. Call me strange, call me callous, but I mean no personal disrespect to the Inuit.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Many people find it possible to hold with their own discipline while respecting others' perceptions.

The source below acknowledges and respects Inuit perceptions - and explains many as refraction, caused by light bending differently through hot and cold air.



a warming northern atmosphere has actually altered the visual landscape of the Arctic, which has caused the sun, moon and stars to appear out of position in the sky. An optical tilt of the earth caused by refraction rather than a physical one!

…In 52 years, the sun has shifted southward by 19 KM, which is a 44 degree movement relative to the position of the observer. This is an example of the massive visual shift that elders across the north have observed, leading them to each conclude that the earth has tilted.


Again,

...It might be beneficial to discuss whether or not 'refraction' explains the change in daylight hours (from 1 to 2 hours for hunting), and the observation that the sun is higher overhead (refraction is more relevant at the horizon).

Of course, that would require respect for the Inuit perceptions.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
It would seem that we are a bit out of whack.

www.monstersandcritics.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.theage.com.au...

I don't know why this isn't letting me post links correctly.

For those too lazy to check the links...basically the Philippine tsunami (actually the earthquake that caused the tsunami) in 2004, the Chile earthquake and the recent Japan earthquake ALL knocked the axis off a bit.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinaed
 


Hi. Phage left this illustration for me, and I think I better understand what is happening.

Wish I could embed the image for you, but I can't. Take a look at this as it cleared things up for me.


www.ecodepotusa.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Many people find it possible to hold with their own discipline while respecting others' perceptions.

The source below acknowledges and respects Inuit perceptions - and explains many as refraction, caused by light bending differently through hot and cold air.

I'm well aware of the explanation, I agree with it and mentioned it myself already, but I'm a scientist by trade, I've ripped into the methodologies of other scientists over less. Even when I believe their results and conclusions are probably right, I'll still regard even a peer reviewed and published study with skepticism if the methodology is sloppy. It's nothing personal.


…In 52 years, the sun has shifted southward by 19 KM, which is a 44 degree movement relative to the position of the observer. This is an example of the massive visual shift that elders across the north have observed, leading them to each conclude that the earth has tilted.

That's the statement that raises a huge red flag to me. No information is given as to how the observer proved that the observation occurred from the exact same spot 52 years apart. A 44 degree change is massive (of course I already know that's not happening physically, they think it is), and I regard landmark-based measurements with a heavy dose of skepticism, particularly when provided without additional detailed proof either of the technique used or the observation itself.


Again,

...It might be beneficial to discuss whether or not 'refraction' explains the change in daylight hours (from 1 to 2 hours for hunting), and the observation that the sun is higher overhead (refraction is more relevant at the horizon).

Of course, that would require respect for the Inuit perceptions.

I respect that the Inuit observed something that caused them to think the earth tilted in such a way that the sun was moved 44 degrees over 52 years, but I question the reason why that happened, including the methodology used. I grow weary of saying it, but I do not exclude the possibility that they did perform their observations properly and it is abnormal levels of atmospheric refraction that they saw. Additional reports from Greenland and elsewhere anecdotally suggest that Novaya Zemlya may be occurring more frequently than in the past. I even think additional study in the arctic is warranted, I simply have concerns about the accuracy of their observations. I'm sorry you find that offensive or lacking respect.

Oh, and to answer your question, yes, abnormally high levels of atmospheric refraction would increase the apparent length of the day; refracting the sun's position higher than it should be can affect both the sunrise and sunset times, hastening sunrise and delaying sunset.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



No information is given as to how the observer proved that the observation occurred from the exact same spot 52 years apart.


Seems they say "We always stand here and look there." …Perhaps the earth (permafrost) is sinking and shifting? Would that account for the 'celestial changes' the Inuit observe? Could the requisite amount of shift and sink alter celestial appearances without the observers knowing it happened? (I doubt they routinely take 'sea level' measurements - and how else would one know?)

...I am looking for the explanation that respects your knowledge and the Inuit perceptions too. Am sure there is one.




...to answer your question, yes, abnormally high levels of atmospheric refraction would increase the apparent length of the day; refracting the sun's position higher than it should be can affect both the sunrise and sunset times, hastening sunrise and delaying sunset.


Thanks. Important info.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


thank you! The visual does help, however it doesn't explain the change in the timber line and plants and insects. To some extent the plants and insects can be explained by worldwide travelers leaving residue behind but to my knowledge the only thing that explains the lack of timber line is a warmer climate. I am not implying any particular reason or cause....just the obvious existence of it here in Alaska



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I know I'm a little late chiming in with this, but I just noticed it this morning while walking my dog. One of the few things I did manage to retain from Intro to Astronomy was that Orion is a winter constellation (in my part of the world, the American South). And I usually use him as a marker for how close we're getting to winter.
For example, in the summer months, he's usually overhead around 3am...and the closer we get to winter, the earlier and earlier I find him in the sky.

Until now. I haven't been able to find him lately, even though we're only days away from December, which I thought was odd. I found him this morning, not directly overhead, but nearly...toward the WSW, AT 5AM!!!
This isn't right. He should be appearing almost directly overhead at around 9-10pm here.

Could we really be off, in our rotation, like the OP claims? It's startin to look that way from here...



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by starsyren
 


It's WSW at 5am because it was already high overhead earlier in the night. WSW means it has already transited the sky. I've been seeing orion rise early in the evening, just as it should. More importantly though, my measurements of the sky have shown me that nothing is wrong with our orientation.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Shouldn't he be moving a little faster than that, to still be in the sky at 5am after having risen earlier in the evening?



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by starsyren
 


No. It's still quite low in the east in the early evening, so naturally it will be low in the west by the early morning hours.





new topics

top topics



 
165
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join