Extreme observatory in the Antarctic: what are they looking for?

reply to post by topherman420


Thanks for your contribution. Please see the link for the tests applied to this photo and the others in the link itself.

poleshift.ning.com...

They're looking for whatever it was that turned Danforth insane.

Clearly.

reply to post by luxordelphi

What tests?
Here's a guy who actually did test it.

reply to post by Phage


Amazing when people ignore facts isn't it?

I despair of some people, I really do.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
poleshift.ning.com...

If the "planet" were truly as close as depicted in the pictures in your link, wouldn't the effects on the other planets and Earth be catastrophic by now?

Or can planets be that huge and merely whiz nearby with nothing so much as a few dozen fish/bird die-offs and a pesky earthquake or two?

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for your contribution, which is always valued, and your opinion on the photo. I have posted the link for the photo plus quotes on how it was tested in several other posts which I won't repeat here except once again to give the link.

poleshift.ning.com...

There is no "turn around", there is a different location. The Dome C location is at a higher elevation than the South Pole station and experiences different conditions.

Just to be clear...this carryon is at Dome A, Dome Argus. I know where the location is. I supplied co-ordinates for it in the OP and under 'WHERE' in the OP I also described it. It's at Mt. Everest height - a whole plateau of Mt. Everest height.

I know what the reports said and it is a 180 degree turn around from the earlier reports. Neither you nor I are going to be making this extreme trek to verify this information. What happens on the Antarctic Plateau stays on the Antarctic Plateau. Is it windy there? Stormy? Cloudy? We're going to have to live with hearsay. It is a complete reversal of previous long standing reports of conditions at the South Pole. I'm just asking some questions about this extreme paradise. And how it got to be that way.

reply to post by Phage


THAT was the video I was looking for and effective in showing what lens flares look like and why you hear mention that they only saw the second one through the camera.

reply to post by luxordelphi

You're correct. PLATO is located on Dome A.

Dome A is at a higher elevation than Dome C (but still less than half as high as Everest). Being a higher elevation than Dome C, its seeing is at least as good as that at Dome C and much better than that of the South Pole station.

Yet there remain sites in Antarctica that may offer even better conditions than Dome C. Dome C lies at a 3,260m summit of the plateau, whereas Dome A is at its highest point, 4,080m. The temperature there likely falls as low as –90°C at times, the precipitable water vapour content to ~100μm (i.e. perhaps half that at Dome C), and the surface winds are likely to be even lower than at Dome C. If so, Dome A will provide the best observing conditions on the planet for a wide range of astronomy, from the near-UV to millimetre wavelengths.

classic.ipy.org...

reply to post by frenzy4444


Nibiru?

Our binary dwarf star is Sirius B, or Isis. There has been alot written on this, but two proofs are that on News Year Eve, directly underneath is the Sun and directly overhead is Sirius B. And in ancient times, it was either blue or red, then it shifted again, in ancient times, one coming towards us, the other leaving.

www.darkstar1.co.uk...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by GR1ill3d


Thanks for your contribution although a bit unrealistic. You're not going to be getting yourself away to this location because no one can stay there. It is an unmanned robotic location. The conditions are too extreme for anyone to stay there.

The rest of your post, though interesting, is not really the topic here. This is not about pole shifts or CME's or solar flares or giant balls of iron...interesting as those things are.

It was really just a curiosity about WHAT they're looking for in this extreme location.

This is an interesting point of view. I have a question for anyone that can give me an answer. Why are these nations spending so much money on this project just to see if there are other exo-planets. As every nation is in financial despair...they want to spend this kind of money for what? To find another earthlike planet that we will never get to and see with our un aided eyes? Sounds like they are looking for something else that is reachable. Just don't see the money spending for something as simple as looking for another unreachable object.

Lightmeup04

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to by GR1ill3d

 

Thanks for your contribution although a bit unrealistic. You're not going to be getting yourself away to this location because no one can stay there. It is an unmanned robotic location. The conditions are too extreme for anyone to stay there.

The rest of your post, though interesting, is not really the topic here. This is not about pole shifts or CME's or solar flares or giant balls of iron...interesting as those things are.

It was really just a curiosity about WHAT they're looking for in this extreme location.

Point taken, but given the topic title and the OP, the subject matter can be taken out of context incredibly easily.
Something to note next time someone or yourself posts something similar to this.

Like Extreme observatory in the antarctic: What are they looking for? (Not Nibiru/2012 related).

The atmosphere is thinner, and a point in the sky will be viewable for a longer period at the poles (the earth rotates at the poles)

In my opinion Antarctica would be the best place for a observatory, it has solid land. The artic circle (north pole) is made up of mostly ice, so wouldnt be that great for buildings.

reply to post by lightmeup04


Actually, I am watching a documentary on NatGeo right now...entitled, "Finding the Next Earth."

natgeotv.com...

Mars is, according to most available sources, the closest planet capable of habitation with modification...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by jeichelberg


Interesting...and I have heard this before. But like I asked..why so much money spent on something that won't happen for many many..many years. Right now our earth and its people are in need of more important things at this moment in time. It is hard to beleive they aren't looking for something else. Something that will have an imact on us in the near future. If just looking for exo-plants is what this project is for...then they need to cut this spending. Of course there are planets out there that are habitable. They are searching for something else or have found what they were truely looking for. I can pretty much say thanks for wasting millions if not billions of dollars on something that is an absolute given. Just does not make logical sence.

Lightmeup04

reply to post by lightmeup04

The purpose not just a search for exo-planets. The purpose is a quest for knowledge about the Universe, how it came to be, where it may be going, if and where other life may be found. The purpose is a quest to satisfy our natural human curiosity. A quest to answer some questions and probably find a lot more to ask. Oh, the purpose is also to look for asteroids which may prove to be a problem for this planet at some point.

But it seems that for you, spending money on knowledge is a waste. I'm glad we have a history of people who disagree.

reply to post by ProudBird


Thanks for your contribution which is kind of all over the place but I'll give it a whack.

I think, but can't be sure, that you're replying to me saying that the extreme observatory on the Antarctic Plateau is for looking at stars that can't be seen from the northern hemisphere. This is fair enough as your opinion and thank you for that. I think, but can't be sure, that you're also saying that a picture someone would take of the sun and environs in New Zealand would be the same as a picture of the sun and environs from the northern hemisphere.

Here is a link which describes Sirius, a very bright star in the sky, giving the times that it is viewable in northern and southern hemispheres and delineating areas of the earth where it is never visible and areas where it is always visible. Check the section on visibility. Comet McNaught is also a good one to look at to understand visibility in northern and southern hemispheres in tandem with the sun but McNaught is history and Sirius is still with us. There are also long periods of time during their respective winters at the north and south polar regions when the sun is not visible at all and it is dark for months until the early signs of twilight begin again. The latitude of the observer when dealing with objects inclined to the ecliptic is key. Sirius, because of it's inclination, can answer some of these questions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your rant about the fallacy of chemtrails is, of course, your opinion. In the blog acccompanying the photo, people had a different opinion. The chemtrails were obscuring their view of the sky when clearly some of them thought there was something to see. I'll give the link once again for clarity.

poleshift.ning.com...




Regarding what they're looking for and the topic of this OP: thank you for replying topically. Yes, we all know, having read the OP, what they say they are looking for. Some of us do not read and accept but wish to question and investigate. But your opinion is always welcome.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The image in your OP is an image of an "object" near the Sun. In March the Sun is visible in New Zealand and everywhere else on the planet except very near the North Pole. In March, anyone anywhere on the planet (except someone very near the North Pole) would have seen the "object" near the Sun unless it were very close to Earth (close as in Earth orbit). An object near the Sun would be visible where ever the Sun is visible. For example, in March the Sun is in Aquarius. No matter where you are on the planet the stars of Aquarius surround the Sun in March. If it weren't daytime when the Sun is visible, those stars (and any planets which happened to be there) would be visible to everyone.

Your example of Sirius is correct to a degree (Sirius is never visible at very high latitudes) but makes little sense in this context. Since it lies far south of the ecliptic (and thus not visible from very far north), it is never near the Sun.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks for your contribution although I was looking for what are they looking for with their extreme observatory at the South Pole.

Try as I might, I cannot actualy find a link to any professional photographer in Christchurch called Sandi Nicole -

I appreciate the time you took to try to verify this persons' professional existence but it is a futile endeavor in virtual space. No one uses their real name when discussing questionable heavenly objects if they still want to have a profession when they're through.

43 south is hardly "very southern" - it is closer to the equator than the pole!

43 degrees south is 2 degrees closer to the equator than to the South Pole. It's very southern compared to mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere. I know it's a long long ways from where I am.

I lived in Christchurch for some years, and there were plenty of contrails from domestic airlines. The city also gets glorious sunsets from some combinations of the Southern Alps and the Nor' West Arch (lenticular clouds created by westerly flow over them).

Chemtrails were the sentiments of the bloggers in the blog with photos I linked. The Pacific South West gets some unbelievable sunsets, always has, but delightful though the subject is, it has little to do with obscured skies caused by artificially created cirrus which have the effect of limiting visibility.

reply to post by luxordelphi

43 degrees south is 2 degrees closer to the equator than to the South Pole. It's very southern compared to mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere. I know it's a long long ways from where I am.

Eugene, Oregon is at 44º N. Do you consider Eugene very close to the North Pole?