It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But it's still odd though, as it suggests the influence of some other 'body' in the galaxy that wasn't there previously.

At the risk of being flamed like a steak, I've felt the moon is different ever since the rocket was fired at it a couple of years back. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but I get a jolt of discomfort now whenever I look at it.

Thats too bad. Sorry you've lost the ability to wonder at the moon. The other night it was nearly full, just a day past or so, but the sky was so clear that dispite the brightness of Luna, there were many constellations visable. Along with Jupiter, Mars and Venus. It was spellbinding.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:31 PM
interesting reading....get this , though
I'm a pilot....58 years old...what I see about the moon is not the perigee, but the travel north and south as the days go by, the moon can move too rapidly , i think, and move to north -south extremes in it's night sky crossing
It naturally turns upside down from one horizon to the other

But what about this (topic sw)....the dad-gum pointer stars....go have ya a looky....we have us a new thread topic here.....they used to point two degrees off Polaris, the North Star......then they were a little more off a year ago.....maybe three degrees or more
now,.....they are "dead on" tell me....

edit on 15-11-2011 by GBP/JPY because: yahushua...our new King!

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:39 PM
Absolute crap, as usual. Of course this thread was written to justify all the "Moon is at an angle" threads, and "the Moon is in the wrong place" threads and that ultimately Planet X or Elenin is the cause. I'll quote the important piece from the paper:

We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain
the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by CherubBaby

I say [SNIP]. Why the heck is where amateur astronomers expect it to be then??? Why does DECADES old astronomy software still show the moon in the right place at the right TIME?

This would not be possible if the actual orbit changed in any significant way like people here claim is the case.
edit on 16-11-2011 by Gemwolf because: Removed naughty word. The censors are there for a reason. Don't circumvent them.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Look all I am saying is that your points are noted. What do you want? You want to tie me up?

I don't ask for anyone to validate anything I say. I just wish there was a different crew on duty for a change. I mean cmon you act like your all related. Family? The Osmonds? I don't know. Do you think there is something you haven't said at this point.?

Why not just spend a short while to educate yourself instead of attacking those who bring the real facts to the table??
Of course it is going to be certain crowd that joins such threads, since this forum is not exactly full of astronomy experts.
If you did a tiny bit of research you would see that this so called "family" is correct and that YOU are the one that is wrong.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Logman
...Logman, baby.....where are the pointer stars aligned now?.....oh you dont know....OK...

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
I have a question about this whole thing....and I do not know if I can express what I mean very well, but I will try.
(and if it seems dumb, sorry! it seems like a good idea in my head, lol)

Okay, couldn't we compare pictures of things on earth that have not moved - like a mountain or monument - and determine by the shadow if the sun is casting its light in a different way?
edit to add: obelisks gave me this idea... because to me they are just like giant sun dials in a way, and I would think that the sun hits them throughout the years in the same way, or it should....

Or could I use pictures of the moon, from the exact same time of year/place in the world, and see if the moon is in a different place?
I have a bunch of pictures of the moon from this spot in my yard and I am waiting to go to the spot on the same night I did before and take pictures. That is what I plan to do.. I dunno if it will work or is worth it....

Is that possible?
edit on 15-11-2011 by BlueBanshee because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:41 PM
You know, I was one of the peeps here who didn't believe this "something is up with the moon" story. I just believed it was a lot of bunch of peeps with nothing better to do making a big deal about nothing.

My perception however changed. Last week in fact. The weather and cloud cover in Ireland has been pretty bad over the last few weeks and so I have not been able to view anything. Thursday 7:10pm I was driving home when my son pointed out the moon to me. Then no more than 3hrs later. I went to park the car when I caught sight of the moon again, only this time it had seemed to have tilted by at least 180 degrees.

To say I was in awe is an understatement. I believe I have a fair knowledge on matters outside of our planet but this just left me perplexed.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:41 PM
reply to post by BlueBanshee

Won't work.
Unlike the Sun, the location of Moonset does not follow annual cycles.

edit on 11/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by Phage

That is a good point about the moon that I had not considered. So the moon idea is out...

I am still curious about the sun, that may still be possible.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by BlueBanshee

Using the Sun, very possible.
Stonehenge for example...or even New York.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Xcellante

What do you mean "tilted?" What phase was the moon? What did you see? Could you please be more specific?

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:03 PM
This is a very interesting post. I love how people on this site know everything while closing their minds to new thoughts and knowledge. Scientists admit they know very little about this planet, the moon, solar system, and universe. To speak absolutely about any of those things is premature. Science is not as exact as people would like to believe so anything's possible, including what people love to call silly, stupid and yes impossible.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by BlueBanshee

Actually the Atomic Clock uses distant stars for calibration because of earth's slight perturbations in orbit and wobble as well as tidal slowing mentioned previous, is why the days are getting longer but the years are getting shorter. Not an aging related wise tell anecdote, its real. That Wiki link is not very good explaining the atomic clock calibrations but an adjustment is made every so many years to keep time we measure constant.

A day isn't exactly 24 hours, and a year isn't exactly 365.25 days. I might be a bit off topic and I had good links a couple of weeks ago but didn't save them. In short the closer things are to us the less accurate for consistency they are in use for referencing.

Our day is like 0.002 seconds longer than it was about a hundred years ago, something like that.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by Chai_An

No, I'm sorry but if distilled water boils at exactly 99.97 degrees Celsius at sea level on earth a million times out of a million then that becomes a scientific basal reference for more complicated experiments to build from. When people tell me that science is just theory I tell them 'The Bomb' works.

You can dream that one time water wont boil at that temperature in the same controlled environment one time out of a billion to prove general relativity is wrong but one would first look at your calibration and measurements methods first before we throw out all what accumulated tests have repeatedly demonstrated. There are known bases. We aren't that dim.

But if it works for you then fine, deny everything, accept anything.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:34 PM
He may not be from Cornell, but the dude's the real deal. He's published over 150 academic papers in reputable journals in the last 12 years, authored/co-authored a number of books, presented at international conferences and academic institutions. What's more, his work has been cited over 800 times.


Total number of citations (self-citations excluded): 832
Source: Citation metrics (SAO/NASA-ADS)

You might be spot-on Phage. Could be much a-do about nothing. But I can't help but think this guy wouldn't waste his time and energy (and reputation) writing/publishing worthless information. And what reputable journal would bother to accept such for publication.

Just my $0.02

Originally posted by Phage

This has been discussed previously.

You can read the paper yourself. It is not from anyone at Cornell University. It was written by L. Iorio of Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (Italy).

The author is discussing a very tiny change in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. An increase of 0.000000018% per year.

A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr re-
vealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity e of the lunar orbit amounting to
e˙meas = (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1.

What this means is that the Moon gets a tiny bit closer to Earth at perigee and a tiny bit further from Earth at apogee. Do you really think people standing on Earth can see something that slight?

edit on 11/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/15/2011 by new_here because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by Illustronic

Im reading a book right now that talks about this subject, The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock. He cites studies about the measurement of time using decay rates of radioactive elements. He also cites a 2010 study finding that decay rates vary depending on how close we are to the sun, and also when there are solar flares. They found that decay rates vary repetedly every 33 days - a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun, 33 also being the number of human vertebrae, and freemason degrees. Wilcock goes into detail explaining how the flow of time is an effect of the flow of gravity. He explains gravity as what he calls the source field (what others have called the ether, the medium of light & consciousness, the unified field) pouring like water into the earth and into all matter. Us human beings existing as sticks, stuck upright in the mud, rigid and unmoving against the current of time, which is the flow of consciousness and life force, love, and potential into the earth. Herself being in love and attracted to the sun, and so forth.

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
But it's still odd though, as it suggests the influence of some other 'body' in the galaxy that wasn't there previously.

At the risk of being flamed like a steak, I've felt the moon is different ever since the rocket was fired at it a couple of years back. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but I get a jolt of discomfort now whenever I look at it.

You`re right.. the difference is that there now is a banged up rocket buried in thee moon soil. It`s a difference, but I don`t believe your antenna would pick that up.

Commencing flaming in 3 - 2 - 1 -

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by metalshredmetal

David Wilcock??

(sigh).....Hardly a person one wishes to bring up in a scholarly discussion. But.....for example:

....33 also being the number of human vertebrae, and freemason degrees.

Disregarding Masonry......let's look at anatomy, Wilcock's "massaging" of facts, in order to make his silly claims "fit".

In humans the spinal column contains 33 vertebrae:.....

? SO far, so good....but wait! There's more!.......those "33" are:

... 7 cervical vertebrae in the neck; 12 thoracic, or dorsal, vertebrae in the region of the chest, or thorax, providing attachment for 12 pairs of ribs; 5 lumbar vertebrae in the small of the back; 5 fused sacral vertebrae forming a solid bone, the sacrum ....

Hmmm.....7+12+5+5 = 29 We're getting there....(although, technically, the sacral vertebrae are fused together in adults, and "form(ing) a solid bone", as it says above). So, really.....we have closer to 24, in adults.

Moving downwards:

....and a variable number of vertebrae fused together to form the coccyx at the bottom of the sacrum.

A "variable number" that form the coccyx, which also are generally fused solid, in adults. The number in the coccyx vary from 4 to 5 (rarely, 6).

Afraid David Wilcock's credibility factor is less than sterling.....

Edit for source:

edit on Tue 15 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in