Twilight, chemtrails, infrared and the return of Planet X

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The blog that you have linked to was written on 1 September, 2009. He clearly states that they arrived there the Wednesday prior to that, or 26 August, 2009.

He says that since they have been there the days have been getting longer (makes sense as their summer is approaching).

He says the following:


When we arrived last Wednesday sunrise was at 10:53AM and sunset was at 2:59PM. Today sunrise is at 9:41AM and sunset is at 4:08PM, giving us more than 2 hours more daylight now than just a week ago. By September 21st we’ll have 12 hours of daylight. Once the sun rises on 19 October it will not set again until 24 February.


Now, I'm guessing here as I'm not you, nor can I read your mind, but I'm guessing that when he says "sunset" and "sunrise", you are thinking that the sun must then go below the horizon. And when he says "Once the sun rises on 19 October it will not set again until 24th February."

Now if we take a look at the calculator you linked, and check out the date 19 October, 2009 we see this:



According to the calculator on that date, the sun did set....and it also rose after over 20 hours of day light. Using Stellarium, when I go to that date, the sun does indeed go below the horizon, but not very far, and not very long as there is a very strong glow from it for 4 hours.

Now, the Youtube video is dated 31 October, 2012, so let us take a look at the calculator again set for this past October:



by the 31st we do have where it says "Up All Day", and while it does say that, it's correct, the sun technically is up all day......if one says that "Sunset is when the trailing edge of the sun passes below the horizon."

By the end of October, the sun's trailling edge no longer goes below the horizon, so by that definition one can say that it is "Up All Day".

So we have a blog written by someone 3 years ago who said that after October 19 the sun would not set anymore....

Question is: how were THEY defining sun set? Were they meaning the whole sun below the horizon? Half the sun?

As for the "dot" that IMHO is a artifact from the sun shining on the plexiglass the webcam is looking through, let us all watch, here is the link to that web cam. Right now it's 11:25 AM there, so it will be many hours before we see it come round again. Let's see what we see then:

Webcam Scott Base




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



You say this as if you expect the rest of the world to think that this whole rogue planet/star theory is NOT a bit far fetched..

It's not far fetched to look for Planet X when there are orbital anomalies. It's traditional.


So when are we supposed to see this fantasy planet, sir? So many different people tell so many different stories, its hard to keep track of these days.

In putting forward this thread my thought was that if we, as human beings, as it were, could leave off behaving badly, Planet X might just sail back on out to the Oort or wherever. That would leave us with a lot of unanswered questions but, on the whole, I think it would be positive.

I contend that Antarctic stations see and have been seeing Planet X. I contend that there have been other odd sightings, mostly in the southern hemisphere.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
In putting forward this thread my thought was that if we, as human beings, as it were, could leave off behaving badly, Planet X might just sail back on out to the Oort or wherever. That would leave us with a lot of unanswered questions but, on the whole, I think it would be positive.


Ah, what a nice "out" you've given yourself. So when this thing never shows up, you can presumably with a straight face claim it just passed us by and we missed it. Oh brother...

This absolutely proves to me that you have nothing. NOTHING. Again, I wish you a long, healthy life filled with many an anxiety-ridden day chasing your white whale. Hopefully, it doesn't drive you too nutty, cause I even after all the passive-aggressive posturing, I still think you're a groovy chick.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



I contend that Antarctic stations see and have been seeing Planet X. I contend that there have been other odd sightings, mostly in the southern hemisphere.


Have you ever actually met an astronomer who works in Antarctica? I've met several, one of whom is nuts-- he's headed back for his third season! I was too interested in their high energy observations to ask them if they noticed Niburu hovering banefully overhead. I'm pretty sure I know what they would say, though. On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't e-mail someone at the South Pole and ask.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



So we have a blog written by someone 3 years ago who said that after October 19 the sun would not set anymore....Question is: how were THEY defining sun set? Were they meaning the whole sun below the horizon? Half the sun?

But don't you see that the definition as far as how much of the sun was above the horizon wouldn't matter because this person clearly describes the sun rising and setting and rising and setting until it stopped setting and stayed up. That happened, in 2009, on October 19. If he was talking about 1/2 the sun or the whole sun, it would only make matters worse (Planet X-wise and conspiracy to cover up Planet X-wise.)

Also, the person who wrote the diary, John Cassano, doesn't seem like someone who would get confused about when the sun is up all day and when it isn't.

Daily Life in McMurdo/Author Profile

John Cassano is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences...He has been doing Antarctic fieldwork since 1994.



As for the "dot" that IMHO is a artifact from the sun shining on the plexiglass the webcam is looking through, let us all watch, here is the link to that web cam. Right now it's 11:25 AM there, so it will be many hours before we see it come round again. Let's see what we see then:

That cam was down when I looked a day later. Tried some other cams but they were down too. I see it's back up now.

And, finally, none of the artifact & lens flare & cams down explanations, explain the gross discrepancies in the date for permanent sunrise. And Planet X, whether we are 'allowed' to see it or not, could certainly explain those. I'm still looking at three dates: Oct. 19, Oct. 24 and Oct. 31.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Have you ever actually met an astronomer who works in Antarctica? I've met several, one of whom is nuts-- he's headed back for his third season! I was too interested in their high energy observations to ask them if they noticed Niburu hovering banefully overhead. I'm pretty sure I know what they would say, though. On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't e-mail someone at the South Pole and ask.

Yes I have, some long years ago now - in 1994 or 1995. Why would they tell us anything? I would advise them not to, or, at the very most, to anonymously and cryptically post on You Tube and let it go at that.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



And, finally, none of the artifact & lens flare & cams down explanations, explain the gross discrepancies in the date for permanent sunrise.

You have not shown a sunrise after Oct 19.



And Planet X, whether we are 'allowed' to see it or not, could certainly explain those.

If it were there "they" couldn't hide it.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Contact him and ask.

I'm serious. Ask him what he means by sunrise and sunset. You are assuming what he meant.

I asked my wife as I was typing my previous post what her definition of Sunset and Sunrise were. She said that to her, the sun is only fully set when the trailing edge of the sun has gone below the horizon (so it's fully covered), and that Sunrise is when the leading edge of the sun appears above the horizon.

So in her opinion, for sunset the sun must be fully covered, and for sunrise, the sun only has to literally peek above the horizon.

My definition is different from her's slightly. To me, sunset is the same as her's, but sunrise to me is when the sun becomes fully visible. But that is just how I view it.

So what we have here is a single person's blog in which he used two words that may have ambiguous meanings, depending on who you talk to. You showed that yourself in a earlier post when you were showing the definitions of sunset and sunrise.

So I'm afraid the only thing you've proven so far is that: people have a different idea what sunset and sunrise is.

And to tell you the truth, thanks! I never thought about it really or realized that people will look at it different.

ETA:

by the way, if you go back and look at the video again, for each screen shot of the web cam, you see the dot move as the sun moves, only it get's closer to the sun, the is gone, then as the sun passes the center of the screen, it reappears, on the other side, and again, moves further away from the sun. The dot also changes color from a white/yellow color to greenish blue then disappears, then when it reappears, it's greenish blue and goes back to white yellow.
It also goes from solid looking to a halo look, then when it reappears, it starts as a halo then looks solid again.

That's what light reflecting off a window will do with a camera when the light source is moving from right to left, or from left to right.

Last: if it were a celestial body, in order for it to have "moved" that far, it would only work if:

1) the body is very small and very close to the Earth, and I do mean small and very close (think small meteor and LEO).

2) The body is big and far, but that would be a huge distance for it to move that fast, in fact, it would be moving faster than any object in our solar system (several percentages close to the speed of light), and anything moving that fast will not stay in our solar system, but would be long gone.

3) The body is big and far, but is not moving that fast........then the Earth must move even faster. But if that were true, again, we'd be moving out of the solar system and by todays date we'd be further away from the sun than Voyager 1 is right now, just since October 31st.

edit on 5-11-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Have you given up on this one or did the light bulb finally come on?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Have you given up on this one or did the light bulb finally come on?


Thankyou for inviting me back to my own thread. The amorphous nature of internet information is clearly shown in the links that I have put forward. When I originally, at the start of this thread, went to sites for the permanent sunrise date at McMurdo, the charts were telling me Oct. 20 and 21. Next time I looked, this had changed to Oct. 24. Now these sites seem to be sticking with Oct. 24. One is reporting Oct. 23. But back in 2009, it was Oct. 19. The video from this year says Oct. 31.

Because of the peculiar situation at the poles in regard to the sun's angle, the date of sunrise, permanent sunrise, sunset and permanent sunset are big time indicators of Planet X nearby (relatively.) A date is a date and sunrise is sunrise. All that can be done at this point is to try to confuse things and that's what's happening with these fluid dates.

To me, it's pretty black and white. If the ecliptic is directly overhead at 38 degrees N, it's going to be measureably off at the poles too. That's going to make the date of permanent sunrise fluctuate. And that's obviously what's happening as I have shown.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



All that can be done at this point is to try to confuse things

There is another option but it requires honesty.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Yes and honesty requires the ability to rid yourself of pride. You know that feeling that says I have to be right.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Yes and honesty requires the ability to rid yourself of pride. You know that feeling that says I have to be right.


So what's your excuse for this persistent delusion?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



All that can be done at this point is to try to confuse things

There is another option but it requires honesty.



You have to be good looking in order to see what's what on the web. Honesty, honestly, has very little to do with it. You have to be quick and you need a screen capture app and you need to get the capture off your computer onto something else asap. Capture first; think later.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I'm talking about honesty regarding your observations.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I'm talking about honesty regarding your observations.


The ecliptic, moon, sun, Jupiter, Pleiades etc. are intermittantly directly overhead from my mid-latitude location. The moon is an interesting one to observe. It's brightness, even though only half full over the past week, and even though I am not in an ideal (dark skies) observing area, has been casting quite a pronounced shadow. This is actually another way to tell if the moon is overhead and another way to tell how far from overhead. When directly overhead, there should be no shadow. The shadow should lengthen based on how low in the sky. Also the orientation of the shadow (i.e. to the north etc.) can indicate how not right things are.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



The ecliptic, moon, sun, Jupiter, Pleiades etc. are intermittantly directly overhead from my mid-latitude location.

No they're not. You need help, more than I can offer but this is a start. This is 100% compatible with a lawnchair.
www.maine.gov...
Give it a try and you'll find the Moon is not at 90 degrees when viewed from anywhere near 38 N Lat. The highest it will be tonight is about 67 degrees.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 





This is 100% compatible with a lawnchair.


Such a simple tool, but even if it is compatible with a lawn chair is it simple enough for some to use?

I hope it isn't to advanced of a tool for them to figure out...



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


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.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
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.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join