Twilight, chemtrails, infrared and the return of Planet X

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Just a little bit of an update on the Astak Mole from a hands-on point of view: it shows a laser site or an infra-red signature as a dashed line. One can easily see where the line originates and what the site is aimed at. The Mole, itself, swivels (can be done through an android) and from a stationary mount has a 260 degree field of view. Kind of cool really because it points out existing surveillance in the neighborhood. And who/what is the object of that surveillance.

Yes, quite a simple tool but complex compared to lux's current method of lying on a flat lawnchair to determine that celestial objects are directly overhead. Finger's crossed.

Fascinated as you are with the simplicity of the lawn chair method, there is observation beyond the lawn chair. The lawn chair, as a recap, when prone, allows one to see what is directly overhead. The ecliptic, moon, sun, Pleiades, Jupiter, Venus etc. should NEVER be directly overhead from mid-latitudes. Particularly now, in winter, in the northern hemisphere when the sun is further south from our point of view than in the summer.

The past 3 or 4 weeks, since I started this thread, have been particularly good for viewing this overhead phenomena. The shadow, cast by the moon, because the moon, even when not yet full, has been unnaturally bright, is also indicative of overhead. Just like high noon for the sun, when the moon reaches its' highest point in the night sky, it won't cast a shadow or the shadow will be very very short if it is directly overhead.

An interesting phenomenon last night was the color of the sky at midnight and the early hours of the morning - 1 to 2am. It was perceptibly blue.

Another item of interest is how close the moon is getting to Orion. Orion is not on the ecliptic. Chemtrailing has been in full force during this time of close approach but, for some reason, the section of sky containing Orion is difficult for chemtrailing to obscure for very long. The obscurant seems to dissipate and need constant attention.

Crystal clear skies here in SC last night. Not a cloud of any kind in the sky.

The moon looked quite beautiful, especially with Jupiter right next to it.

And as I sat outside with my 5 inch reflector that uses a 20 year old polar aligned mount, which I aligned manually to Polaris, every single object in the sky that I dialed the Right Accession and Declination coordinates into it, appeared exactly dead center in the eye piece.

My book with coordinates for stars, NGC and Messier objects that was printed over 35 years ago, is still as accurate as it was back then.

Sorry, but I'll take my polar aligned equatorial telescope mount over your head laid prone on a lawn chair any day. Especially when the gearing and dials on my telescope mount were machined and aligned by engineering, and your head and neck were not.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Another item of interest is how close the moon is getting to Orion. Orion is not on the ecliptic.

Right. Orion is not on the ecliptic, but is only about 10° to 20° south of the ecliptic (where it has always been).

Actually, Orion is large, and spans across several degrees of the sky. Orion's "upper hand" is about 4 degrees off the ecliptic, with its "shoulder" (Betelgeuse) about 10° off the ecliptic, and the "belt" about 20°.

That's why the Moon looked close to Orion last night -- because Orion is close to the ecliptic, and the Moon (which is currently a few degrees south of the ecliptic) passed a few degrees from Orion's "hand", and about 10° from Orion's shoulders...
...which is not at all unexpected.



By the way -- my personal experience matches 'eriktheawful' on this one. My brother dabbles in amateur astronomy, using the equipment he got from my parents as a high school graduation gift 30+ years ago (1979). The tracking mount is motorized, but by no means is it computerized -- it's just a mechanical motor that moves the telescope at the proper speed.

He points the telescope manually, and the charts he uses for "RA" and "Dec" are the same ones he's had for those 30+ years, and those charts are still accurate (i.e., the sky is not "wrong").

reply to post by luxordelphi

Just a little bit of an update on the Astak Mole from a hands-on point of view: it shows a laser site or an infra-red signature as a dashed line. One can easily see where the line originates and what the site is aimed at.

What's your point?

Kind of cool really because it points out existing surveillance in the neighborhood. And who/what is the object of that surveillance.

How does it point this out?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


You have a belligerent mouth and way about you. That being said, who are you? What are you? I mean you are just another accuser who knows no more than an average person. You think you are informed but you not. And btw, you might make mention next time you start cross threading peoples previous threads for the sake of ridiculing them , that you yourself have never created a single thread of your own. Not under your current account anyway.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I think you might want to take a peek at this.

With an unexpectedly clear sky last night, I found myself observing the Moon (well before the occultation of Zeta Tauri). I would have guessed the waxing gibbous Moon was about 8 days old at the time. I was caught up in observing and imaging what I could see, not what I might have expected to see.

Later that night, while looking through the images I'd taken, I realized that normally on an eight day old (it was actually nine days old, although I didn't know that yet) Moon, Rupes Recta- the Straight Wall- can be seen. I hadn't noticed it while observing, but I didn't specifically look for it. Later, while looking through my images, I saw that Rupes Recta was in full daylight, and therefore not visible. This led me to believe that libration had turned the visual western limb away from us.

Things are not as you would like to believe they are in the heavens.
Here is the link

pchris00pnc.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

You have a belligerent mouth and way about you. That being said, who are you? What are you? I mean you are just another accuser who knows no more than an average person. You think you are informed but you not. And btw, you might make mention next time you start cross threading peoples previous threads for the sake of ridiculing them , that you yourself have never created a single thread of your own. Not under your current account anyway.

Well, explain to us how you can rightfully say that he knows no more than an average person, or that he is an uninformed person. For all you know he might be a rocket scientist with multiple advanced degrees, or a homeless guy that uses a library computer to make his posts. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with what he says or the way he says it, but pretending that you are informed about what he knows or how smart he is just turns you into what you are accusing him of being.

Also ... since when does starting threads on here make any sort of a difference in anything at all? Do you think that success in a virtual pat-on-the-back system really makes a person a better and/or smarter poster on here?

Originally posted by CherubBaby

...Things are not as you would like to believe they are in the heavens.
Here is the link

pchris00pnc.blogspot.com...

I'm not sure what the significance of that link is supposed to be. Could you please explain what is meaningful (relative to this thread) about that blog entry? I may be misunderstanding what the author of that blog was saying, I don't think he was saying something is "wrong".

First of all, the Moon will certainly appear to have a different tilt in October than it would in March. That's due to the tilt (relative to a given time during the lunar cycle) of a given point on Earth being different In October than it is in March...

...That is to say, the angle from which a person is viewing the Moon from a given location on Earth will be different in October than in March from that same location. Different viewing angles = different appearance of the tilt of the Moon.


Secondly, as he mentioned, the October 4, 2011 to March 1, 2011 comparison for illumination and appearance is not that valid, because of the difference in lunation (7.53 days as opposed to 9.15 days). He pointed out that a better comparison is October 5, 2011, when lunation was closer to what it was on March 1. That comparison showed the two Moons looking very similar (except for the tilt, which I already explained).

Again, could you please explain what you find significant about the information in that link?

reply to post by CherubBaby

You have a belligerent mouth and way about you.

Aside from being rather hypocritical that's not a very nice way to begin a post. It's also most likely due to your own perceptions moreso than anything intentional on my part. I'm not a professional writer and I don't type, I hunt and peck. Therefore my posts tend to be brief and to the point. Your perceptions don't necessarily correlate to my implications.

That being said, who are you? What are you?

I am a father whose son had questions about all this 2012 nonsense. I have concerns about the future of this world he's growing up in but thanks to the lunatic fringe and the rational ones I at least feel like I can rest a little easier now.

I mean you are just another accuser

You can stop right there. Who have I accused and of what? I have asked questions and stated facts but accusations? I don't think so. If so, certainly none without merit.

I mean you are just another accuser who knows no more than an average person.

Now that seems like a hostile and aggressive aka belligerent statement. So that we can be on the same page here could you please provide me with your source containing my cumulative knowledge?

You think you are informed but you not.

Actually I am informed. Even my sorry high school education taught me to speak better than that. I am however seeking to become more informed. That's one reason I risk frequenting this site. I say risk because the minefield of all the demonstrably inaccurate information disseminated here can be challenging at times.

You have to understand that I live about 38 degrees north of the Equator. That latitude was specifically mentioned in regard to observations of celestial objects being "Directly overhead". What do you expect me to say when I can look up and see that the claims being made are not true? Question after question goes unanswered in favor of more nonsense.

And btw, you might make mention next time you start cross threading peoples previous threads for the sake of ridiculing them

That wasn't ridicule, just a legitimate question in response to your accusation.