It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



And no, you can't see Jupiter with the naked eye if he's behind the sun or too close to the sun. The suns' glare cancels out a lot of stuff. And no, you don't know what light band it's viewable in - maybe it's one that isn't humanly perceptible.


Surely you see Jupiter if it is not in these conditions you state and that is my point...Why would you make these statements in response to my post? I already stated the Sun is capable of obscuring objects by either its size or light? That is why we do not see stars in the daytime...What is about my specific points made in my post that prevent you from acknowledging them? Your reply was not a direct acknowledgement of my post...So, for clarity sakes, I ask you to directly address these questions;

1) Do you agree the size of the object in the photos (i.e., evidence) clearly indicates that if the Sun was not present, it would be visible to the naked eye?

2) Do you agree you can see Jupiter with a naked eye?

3) Do you agree an object of that size and in that close a proximity to the Sun would be visible everywhere the Sun could be Sun on the Earth on that date?




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 




Why just tonight the moon is almost directly overhead in Las Vegas.


How does this relate to telescopes in the Antarctic and photos in New Zealand? I am still unclear as to how photos in New Zealand relate to telescopes in the Antarctic...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Chill Gaul. A binary is not the end of the world. All the prophets say that the world goes on. The drawings from that cave in France prove that the world goes on. They were dated to 24,000 or 26,000 years ago - that would be the last time earth found itself in the current heavenly configuration. It's all circular to a degree with, I'm sure, a few surprises thrown in. It may be back to basics and I like my conveniences but on the other hand the evils of our time are not due to heavenly causes. Noah and his family made it. Moses and Co. got by. It's the greatest show that earth has seen for a long time and we're alive to see it.

Here are some links to the four anomalies I mentioned, one of them the moon orbit anomaly. There have been at least two threads on ATS on the moon anomaly. The 2nd link is to an MIT blog and they add a fifth anomaly - Saturns' orbital anomalies. The last link is a catalogue of hundreds of astronomical anomalies. Really more than we could ever discuss.

www.eurekalert.org...
www.technologyreview.com...
www.science-frontiers.com...

Here's another link for binary evidence.

www.eurekalert.org...

Solar System warming is an effect unless you believe in spontaneous combustion, which is ok if you do. Sirius is one binary candidate. Not my fave but there it is.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 





Surely you see Jupiter if it is not in these conditions you state and that is my point...Why would you make these statements in response to my post? I already stated the Sun is capable of obscuring objects by either its size or light?


I make these statements because we don't know everything, in fact, when it comes to the universe, we know very little and even that little we do know may be wrong. I make them because I feel it's best to embrace all possible solutions and not count anything out until the truth becomes apparent. I don't feel that we need to limit ourselves to preconceived notions regardless of how credentialed they are.

Your questions:



1) Do you agree the size of the object in the photos (i.e., evidence) clearly indicates that if the Sun was not present, it would be visible to the naked eye?

No.



2) Do you agree you can see Jupiter with a naked eye?

No. Not always.



3) Do you agree an object of that size and in that close a proximity to the Sun would be visible everywhere the Sun could be Sun on the Earth on that date?

No.


How does this relate to telescopes in the Antarctic and photos in New Zealand? I am still unclear as to how photos in New Zealand relate to telescopes in the Antarctic...

Last night the moon was directly overhead at 12 0'clock high as it passed over from the east to the west here where I am at 36 or so degrees north latitude. I give and gave that as an example of effects we might see in the northern hemisphere of an X quantity. Even though we might not be able to see X itself from here, we can still see the effects. The photo we've beaten to death. I've given my take on southern hemisphere versus northern hemisphere viewing. I've also given my take on polar viewing. In fact, the only take I haven't given is on equatorial viewing. And, truly, this viewing has become fluid because the times are changing. I've tried to present actual observations from lay and professional people to show that viewing can be limited by latitude. Nothing in the heavens stands still. From the northern hemisphere there are stars around the south pole that we will never see unless we go to the southern hemisphere.

matadornetwork.com...

However, constellations that appear closer to the North and South Poles are only visible to the corresponding hemisphere…The southern hemisphere has 11 circumpolar constellations, including six first-order magnitude stars, whereas the northern hemisphere only has five circumpolar constellations, none of which has very bright stars…Why? Because the South Pole faces the galactic center of the Milky Way, providing a view of billions of stars.


earthsky.org...

The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), which is visible to the unaided human eye, is a familiar sight to observers in Earth’s southern hemisphere. Along with the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) not far from it on our sky’s dome, it looks like nothing so much as a small, faint bit of the Milky Way that has broken off…For observers South of about 20 degrees South Latitude, the LMC is circumpolar, meaning that it can be seen (at least in part) all night every night of the year, weather permitting…In the northern hemisphere, only observers south of about 20 degrees North latitude can ever see it at all.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Right - so there's a whole lot of stuff we cant' explain at the moment listed in those articles - of which the Eurekalog article is the only one attempting to make the case for an "unknown companion".

Shrug - OK, if that's what rocks your boat there's no law against it. But it is generally considered bad science to try to make the facts fit a conclusion you would like to prove.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Thank you for the answers to the questions...In the interest of further understanding, I present these follow up questions:

1(A) You answered no to question one. In two parts as a follow up (and presuming it is not a lens flare) do you believe (Part One):

a) it gives off its own light; or,
b) it reflects the light of the Sun;

1(B) On what basis do you believe it to be invisible to the naked eye, given the relative size it occupies in the sky?

2) Other than being obscured by cloud cover, or being eclipsed by the Sun, or the other reasons already offered in the post, are there any other specific reasons you believe Jupiter would not be visible to the naked eye? If the answer is yes, please be kind enough to list them.

3) Since the object is in close proximity to the Sun in the photo stills, and since you state it does not follow the Sun, this indicates you believe the object is circumpolar in nature. What happens to the lighting of the object as the Sun pulls away?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


One of the links I gave you was a duplicate - sorry - this is the one I meant to give on the four anomalies:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

And here is one that gives 6 reasons for a binary:

www.sott.net...

They are angular momentum, the Kuiper Cliff, the Oort comets and the other 3 are about precession. Too many corrections needed with the existing method and some sort of precession acceleration.

And thank you for your comments.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


Regarding your questions about what I think:

On your #1 first-part: I don't know.
On your #1 second-part: size is relative and visible spectrum is subjective
On your #2: occultation, orbital anomaly, chemtrails...specifically reflective nano particles and specific to those...designed to reflect/occlude specific color spectrum (this answer also good for #1, second-part)
On your #3: Have you ever seen the moon in the sky on a very hazy day? It's difficult to make out and yet it's very big in our sky. You can usually find it though if you look hard enough because you know it's there. Our skies are not clear and haven't been for a long time.

Still I think the south pole action is directed at something specific, something that perhaps WISE gave a hint of. After all, it was supposedly WISE that found the Trojan and then, knowing where to look, earthbound telescopes found it too. Sounds like a plan.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And here is one that gives 6 reasons for a binary:

www.sott.net...

They are angular momentum, the Kuiper Cliff, the Oort comets and the other 3 are about precession. Too many corrections needed with the existing method and some sort of precession acceleration.


Hmmm....well the 1st one - angular momentum, has apparently not actually been a problem since the late 1970's

#2 the sheer edge allows the existence of a binary - but a binary is not actually a necesity for it - as this article from the binary research institute notes a couple of times - the article on your page uses the diagrammes from here, and also notes that it is not actually a reason fo a binary.

#3 - Comet paths - as the article states - "This is certainly an area that neads further study" - so not actually a reason for a binary eitehr.

#4 Sidereal vs. Solar Time - this is jsut pure specultion with no actual evidence offered that a binary exists - not exactly what I would consider a reason for a binary

#5 postulates a problem with precession noted by "Karl Heinz and Uwe Homann " and Walter W. Cruttenden - trouble I have with this is that these people have obvious conflicts of interest - ie they start with the assumption there is a binary, and then fit the evidence to suit that. I would expect anything supportable they have found to be in hte mainstream somewhere, and it isn't AFAIK.

But even so they do not see the problem they have identified as a reason there is a binary - as above it would allow for there to be one:


Of course, that still doesn't prove precession is due to our Sun being in orbit with a companion star, but it certainly makes the case stronger. Ultimately one would have to find the companion star in question to prove anything.


#6 is hte accelerating rate of precession of the equinioxes - for which a 5 minute search finds nothign except repetitions of basically the contents of your link - however the article then makes a logical leap that is not justified - aof this it says:


Either way, this trend of the annual precession rate increasing is exactly what one would expect to find from two stars in a binary orbit following Kepler's law.


which is fair enough on the surface....but in the conclusion it leaps from ther eto:


Precession appears to be the evidence right under our noses, telling us that our Sun is also part of a binary star system (in contrast to a lone ball of fire bobbing up and down along its way through the galaxy).


Which is not actually what it was saying originally.

Tehre is a lot of info in that link - thaks for it.

But I am afraid it eagerly leaps to its desired conclusion far too quickly based upon points that are not actually anything more than points which do not exclude the existence of a binary system.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Thank you. In follow up to question #2:

What other heavenly bodies are affected by the nano-chemtrails in terms of visibility?

How is the plan by the PTB failing, since the object was caught on camera in New Zealand? What did they do wrong?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Three more follow up questions...If you notice in my asking of the question, I did not make reference to knowledge...I was very specific...I asked:

Do you believe the object is giving off light or reflecting light? Again, I just want you to tell me what you believe about the object. Not what you know...

EDIT: Additional question: I noticed you state "our skies have not been clear for a very long time...", yet they are clear enough to take pictures of stars and other objects in the skies, including the photo of the Moon in the other frequently occupied thread...How are the PTB failing here?

What do you believe happens to the lighting of the object in the OP photo as the Sun pulls away?
edit on 12/9/2011 by jeichelberg because: formatting

edit on 12/9/2011 by jeichelberg because: Further content



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
There's a story on Space.com about the facility I just read. Link and snippet below.

Snippet:

Although telescopes in Antarctica are currently scanning the sky for microwave and millimeter-wave radiation, the Antarctic plateau could also be ideal for observatories that monitor other parts of the light spectrum as well.

"China is currently the main driver in developing the most promising of these sites," Crawford said.

China is building Kunlun Station at the highest point at the Antarctic plateau at an elevation of 13,395 feet (4,083 m). Chinese researchers have ambitious plans for telescopes that work in the optical, infrared and terahertz ranges, Burton noted. Australia is collaborating with them, and has already set up a robotic observatory there, he added.

source: www.space.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Thank you for your input. The point is not that these items, angular momentum - the Kuiper Cliff - Oort Cloud comets - precession problems, prove the existence of a binary but rather that they are a reason to consider a binary.

It was when I first came to ATS that a member gave me the link to the Binary Institute and I found their arguments for a binary to explain precession compelling. The current system of constantly correcting everything leaves a lot to be desired.

The current explanations for the Oort comets are froo froo and have to do with a star that passed by umpteen years ago and started some small movement which has its' result today. It's all theory.

I'm not a fan of the angular momentum thing so that can just go in the dumpster for my money.

And your last statement...




But I am afraid it eagerly leaps to its desired conclusion far too quickly based upon points that are not actually anything more than points which do not exclude the existence of a binary system.


I don't really disagree except that it's not leaping to conclusions, it's offering a solution to a number of unexplained items. Anyway, it would be a kick if the rush to the South Pole was to look for a binary that in some incredibly long orbit was coming to closest approach and that was one speculation of my topic here.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


The best thing that a person with questions about the sky can do is to go outside and look up. This is not so easy in the information age. The graphics and pictures on the monitor all have explanations to go with them and everything seems so easy to understand and is so nicely packaged. However, the virtual word is not the real world. The real world obeys physical laws. The virtual world doesn't. Things are a lot different in the real world from the way they are portrayed in the virtual world. It is the real world that we are part of and that we need to observe. Observing the virtual world is like observing nothing.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


Thank you for your contribution. Enjoyed the link. Sure are a lot of telescopes already there and more going up all the time. I found these quotes of interest:


"Amazingly, the South Pole now ranks with the grand research laboratories such as Fermilab and CERN," said theoretical physicist Francis Halzen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.



Chinese researchers have ambitious plans for telescopes that work in the optical, infrared and terahertz ranges, Burton noted.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


The best thing that a person with questions about the sky can do is to go outside and look up. This is not so easy in the information age. The graphics and pictures on the monitor all have explanations to go with them and everything seems so easy to understand and is so nicely packaged. However, the virtual word is not the real world. The real world obeys physical laws. The virtual world doesn't. Things are a lot different in the real world from the way they are portrayed in the virtual world. It is the real world that we are part of and that we need to observe. Observing the virtual world is like observing nothing.


I agree...

And that is the reason why I asked you very specific questions about the object...What do you believe is going on regarding the lighting of the object?

Is it reflecting light or is it emitting its own light? Related to physical laws....

How are the PTB failing when pictures (i.e., documented evidence of observations) are being taken?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


I have a good question for you. Why don't you stop asking questions and practice giving some answers to your questions.? You already have them don't you? I mean thats why your asking the same things over and over and over and over and over again isn't it.
Are you a trial lawyer or just another person who should realize they only have an opinion. As do other human beings on this planet who are just as capable as yourself .



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


I have a good question for you. Why don't you stop asking questions and practice giving some answers to your questions.? You already have them don't you? I mean thats why your asking the same things over and over and over and over and over again isn't it.
Are you a trial lawyer or just another person who should realize they only have an opinion. As do other human beings on this planet who are just as capable as yourself .


It is called coming to a mutual understanding...that is the purpose of questions. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


In addition, there comes a time when a person realizes (as has been pointed out to you on a couple of other occasions) that facts dispel the need of opinions...



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


I know its a mutual understanding. So can you answer mine. Do you already have your answers in place awaiting your requests for answers to your questions that you already have a rebutal for. ?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join