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.

 

Can an object approaching the South Pole be hidden from prying eyes

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Maybe the problem is not understanding the term fact. Some people think it means truth. It does not.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[


A scientific fact is something believed to be true. It is checked repeatedly through experiments. It can turn out to be wrong. I believe 3 times Nobel winning work was found to be wrong. One of those cases involved an experiment on a shuttle mission. It involved the human vestibular system if I recall correctly.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Actually, the ancients did not meld science with other disciplines because science did not exist back then. The idea of science is relatively new. It has proceeded to divorce itself from many of the issues that have hampered scientific inquiry.

BTW, astrology is not scientific.


You talk of modern day science divorcing itself from other disciplines - is that really true or just a personal perspective?.
So modern day science divides itself from the rest of the world are you saying?
That sounds like an isolationist path -surely you dont mean that.
As an artist I embrace modern day science as much of it is reinforces my personal soul journey.
Astrology is Astrology and forget the silly horoscope stuff - it is a deep and ancient discipline to do with archetypes as found in nature.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Hey, I agree with you except I don't even bother to read them.

If you've got angels or sparkles in your avatar, I'm pretty sure we're not going to be on the same page. Irony is simply not prevalent among the new agey. I don't believe whatsoever in consciousness shifts, remote viewing, tarot cards, auras, etc.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
The one big question I wanted answered is why people so often claim that an object approaching directly at the South Pole could only be seen from the South Pole.

So far no one has answered.



I respect you sticking to the point you made about an object being seen from the south pole - Your diagram I thought was good - the only flaw I saw was that the south pole is nearer to an incoming object than say at the equator by the distance of a half Earth or so which is not much space distance wise..


edit on 3-4-2012 by artistpoet because: typo



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26
reply to post by stereologist
 


Its not called the South Pole, no one calls it that except uneducated Americans. Its called Antarctica.


Wrong - the south pole is one spot in the large continent called Antarctica.
Please engage brain before touching a keyboard.
And most people call the south pole the south pole.
It is one point at latitude 90S where all directions are north.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
My question still is why would people think that it is possible to hide by making a specific approach which is along the Earth's axis towards the South Pole.


Because the people who espouse these theories are generally crackpots with almost zero astronomical knowledge. The simplest way to prove them wrong is by asking them to locate Polaris using the big dipper. Once It is demonstrated and explained how they can see the celestial north pole without being stood on the terrestrial pole, most people will begin to understand how ridiculous their concept is.

To expand on the why; liars thrive on their stories being unverifiable. If he tells you that something can only be seen from alabama; you could quite easily have anfriend/colleague/acquaintance in Alabama or google an Alabama branch of mcdonalds and hope for a friendly employee to help you out. Whereas the south pole is the most remote, inhospitable location on the planet and is visited by such a small number of people that the chances of you being able to verify the story are slim to none.
edit on 3/4/12 by cheesyleps because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by stereologist
The one big question I wanted answered is why people so often claim that an object approaching directly at the South Pole could only be seen from the South Pole.

So far no one has answered.



I respect you sticking to the point you made about an object being seen from the south pole - Your diagram I thought was good - the only flaw I saw was that the south pole is nearer to an incoming object than say at the equator by the distance of a half Earth or so which is not much space distance wise..


edit on 3-4-2012 by artistpoet because: typo


Read previous posts and you will see that this question has been answered.
I did so on early on in this discussion.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheesyleps

Originally posted by stereologist
My question still is why would people think that it is possible to hide by making a specific approach which is along the Earth's axis towards the South Pole.


Because the people who espouse these theories are generally crackpots with almost zero astronomical knowledge. The simplest way to prove them wrong is by asking them to locate Polaris using the big dipper. Once It is demonstrated and explained how they can see the celestial north pole without being stood on the terrestrial pole, most people will begin to understand how ridiculous their concept is.


If objects in our solar system are so detectable - how come the many moons of Saturn for example 62 - of which some have not yet been named and were only discovered very very recently - It is all about which bit of the heavens you focus attention on - As in the deep field study by Hubble.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Hey nghunter...so you don't think it's easier to keep something in the heavens a secret in the southern hemisphere as opposed to the northern hemisphere.

Antarctica


no indigenous inhabitants, but there are both permanent and summer-only staffed research stations


the population doing and supporting science or engaged in the management and protection of the Antarctic region varies from approximately 4,400 in summer to 1,100 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel, including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research, are present in the waters of the treaty region


Arctic


There are now approximately 4 million people living permanently in the Arctic,


Indigenous populations now range from about 80% in Greenland, 50% in Canada, 20% in Alaska, 15% in Arctic Norway and as little as 3-4% in Arctic Russia


Antarctica has no indigenous populations. The permanent human population of the Arctic - about 4,000,000. The Antarctic - 0.


Still...you may be right because I easily found this video said to be from Scott-Amundsen, the south pole station itself.

NIBIRU - Latest with 5 planets Visible


Seeing as you have posted this it is no longer a secret is it?
Can you verify that this was taken by the South Pole telescope, and not in a darkened room with a few pin pricks of light showing trough one of the walls.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by cheesyleps

Originally posted by stereologist
My question still is why would people think that it is possible to hide by making a specific approach which is along the Earth's axis towards the South Pole.


Because the people who espouse these theories are generally crackpots with almost zero astronomical knowledge. The simplest way to prove them wrong is by asking them to locate Polaris using the big dipper. Once It is demonstrated and explained how they can see the celestial north pole without being stood on the terrestrial pole, most people will begin to understand how ridiculous their concept is.


If objects in our solar system are so detectable - how come the many moons of Saturn for example 62 - of which some have not yet been named and were only discovered very very recently - It is all about which bit of the heavens you focus attention on - As in the deep field study by Hubble.


Essentially what you are saying is that they could be right but we don't have the equipment/time/funding to prove or disprove their statements? Which begs the question: how in the he'll does the guy creating the YouTube video / ATS thread know or come up with his theory? It's baloney (to use an American term). Nothing more, nothing less.

Ps. Off topic, but The deep field image is quite possibly one of the most astounding things ever produced by man.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 

Yes I did read your post
My point still stands


edit on 3-4-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Artistpoet, I forgot to clarify the important point that I am addressing the OPs questions regarding the premise that an object can only enviewed from the south terrestrial pole. Not whether there is anything there or not. Even if there were something directly on the south celestial pole it would be visible from approximately half the surface of the earth (to whatever instrument is required to detect it).



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cheesyleps
 

Yes it is true that it is all down to resources - many times amateur astronomers will spot things such as asteroids before the big boys do - But amateurs do not have access to Hubble - Hubble time is much valued and I am sure the waiting list for it is long - Yes Hubble Deep Field is mind blowingly beautiful - It was the medieval poet Dante 1300 who first struck a chord with me regarding Astronomy though his model is flawed - Then seeing comet Hale Bop and the advent of Hubble once it got glasses - there are so many wonders out there.
I agree there are a lot of fool you tube vids out there - Wish we had more Hubbles



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheesyleps
Artistpoet, I forgot to clarify the important point that I am addressing the OPs questions regarding the premise that an object can only enviewed from the south terrestrial pole. Not whether there is anything there or not. Even if there were something directly on the south celestial pole it would be visible from approximately half the surface of the earth (to whatever instrument is required to detect it).


Yes I agree -
And of course an incoming object could be seen from south of the equator - I merely nit picked the point that that it would come into view first at the south pole if on a direct course with the south pole but would be soon visible then further up toward the equator



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Hey nghunter...so you don't think it's easier to keep something in the heavens a secret in the southern hemisphere as opposed to the northern hemisphere.

Antarctica


no indigenous inhabitants, but there are both permanent and summer-only staffed research stations


the population doing and supporting science or engaged in the management and protection of the Antarctic region varies from approximately 4,400 in summer to 1,100 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel, including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research, are present in the waters of the treaty region


Arctic


There are now approximately 4 million people living permanently in the Arctic,


Indigenous populations now range from about 80% in Greenland, 50% in Canada, 20% in Alaska, 15% in Arctic Norway and as little as 3-4% in Arctic Russia


Antarctica has no indigenous populations. The permanent human population of the Arctic - about 4,000,000. The Antarctic - 0.


Still...you may be right because I easily found this video said to be from Scott-Amundsen, the south pole station itself.

NIBIRU - Latest with 5 planets Visible


Seeing as you have posted this it is no longer a secret is it?
Can you verify that this was taken by the South Pole telescope, and not in a darkened room with a few pin pricks of light showing trough one of the walls.

It's not even remotely close to what actual images from the SPT look like. Furthermore, the SPT isn't even close to being capable of imaging at 1.65 microns, not even remotely close. It's not an infrared telescope at all. The video's a complete hoax, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that Luxor not only fell for it, but still thinks its real long after many people debunked it.
edit on 3-4-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 



You talk of modern day science divorcing itself from other disciplines - is that really true or just a personal perspective?.
So modern day science divides itself from the rest of the world are you saying?
That sounds like an isolationist path -surely you dont mean that.
As an artist I embrace modern day science as much of it is reinforces my personal soul journey.

Science often displays itself in the form of art. One of the most interesting science-art collaborations I saw was a dance that was choreographed to illustrate how superconductivity works. I was pretty lost up to that point. When you saw the dance it became much clearer to me how electron pairing resulted in 0 resistance.

Science attempts to divorce itself from notions such as why people exist. This is a philosophical issue. An example of a problem was Lysenkoism where a political viewpoint tried to drive science.

I am currently involved in a high tech art project. It blends science and art. I am going to say up front that any mathematical predictions about the perceived art are going to be wrong because what is shown is not what people are likely to perceive. It will take a great deal of experimentation to determine what people perceive from the types of images that can be generated.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 



I respect you sticking to the point you made about an object being seen from the south pole - Your diagram I thought was good - the only flaw I saw was that the south pole is nearer to an incoming object than say at the equator by the distance of a half Earth or so which is not much space distance wise..

Thanks for your kins words about my attempt at "art".

You do bring up an interesting point. A viewer at the equator has to look through more atmosphere than a viewer at the poles. Most observatories do not try to view close to the horizons.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 



If objects in our solar system are so detectable - how come the many moons of Saturn for example 62 - of which some have not yet been named and were only discovered very very recently - It is all about which bit of the heavens you focus attention on - As in the deep field study by Hubble.

Objects are detected by reflected light. Smaller objects are harder to locate. That is why small asteroids can appear out of nowhere. They are not noticed till they are close to us.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Thanks that was an interesting reply
I agree about peoples perceptions - It often surprises me what others see in my work which I am not aware of.
Sometimes I feel art is like a medium through which ideas can be manifested and ideas are open to individual interpretation dependent on the individuals own knowledge and experiences.
I throw all sorts into the mix from real modern astronomy to ancient mythology philosophy to create something appealing to as many people as possible.
I think science should be free to go where it will and do understand now what you mean about divorcing itself from being rail roaded.
Good luck with your project - sounds good to me

edit on 3-4-2012 by artistpoet because: typo



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet
 



If objects in our solar system are so detectable - how come the many moons of Saturn for example 62 - of which some have not yet been named and were only discovered very very recently - It is all about which bit of the heavens you focus attention on - As in the deep field study by Hubble.

Objects are detected by reflected light. Smaller objects are harder to locate. That is why small asteroids can appear out of nowhere. They are not noticed till they are close to us.


Yes I understand what you speak of - One of the most interesting events captured was the shoemaker levy comet heading toward Jupiter and how Jupiter's gravity broke it up on entry into several pieces and literally ate it but I digress




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join