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

the forming black hole. thats why it is not easy to see it. of many names. IT IS COMMING, WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

reply to post by luxordelphi

And yet there are a number of disadvantages with this site:

Nothing is perfect.

And a strange advantage considering the number of months when the sun doesn't set:

No location other than one inside the Antarctic (or Arctic) circle can match the number of dark days.

And some problems directly linked to site inaccessibility and seeing conditions:

Nothing is perfect. Yet they were able to obtain very good observations.

And a statement showing that the best visibility was limited to one day:

No. You are assuming such conditions occurred on only one day. They selected a 24 hour period which had very good conditions to create their master reference.

And then of course the fact that what they did had all been done before with equally tiny telescopes from someplace else without the climate and inaccessibilty disadvantages:

Not quite "all". But did you miss the fact that it shows that anything visible from Dome A would be visible from anywhere in the southern hemisphere? But, of course, ASAS is not capable of performing the continuous observations which can be done at Dome A. Indeed, in glancing at the ASAS catalog it can be seen that there are a lot of sources near the celestial south pole which have only a single observation.

I'm sorry but my frustration level has reached its limit. Rather than trying to look at the project(s) on the whole you hunt for little "gotchas" to support your idea that PLATO was placed where it is for a single secretive purpose. Combining your confirmation bias (which comes from your conviction that there is something "out there" which is being hidden) with your lack of understanding of astronomy results in a pointless discussion. I'm tired of restating the same thing every time you misinterpret, misunderstand, or take a quote out of context.

reply to post by Phage

The Sun is 0.5º across. That makes the difference in the chords of the Venus transit about 0.05º. Yes, I admit I rounded the figures I gave to the nearest degree.

My example had nothing to do with your rounding of numbers. It had to do with how a difference in latitude changes the view. It can be the difference between something enough outside the suns' glare to view and not. That example of the transit of Venus which showed that it was SHORTER in some latitudes than others isn't something I made up. It has been an international collaboration in war time and peace time of scientists and researchers very carefully searching for a way to calculate the distance between earth and Venus.

As far as Saturn goes...do you really think that a person would not be able to tell whether a star winked out or dimmed if it was a star visible to the naked eye? Light is light and the lack of it is the lack of it.

I looked for a link to the story about the earth Trojan - the story that said it had moved off its' Lagrange point and that was why it was found but I can't find that story anymore. The only ones I can find are about WISE discovering it. Here's an asteroid that comes as close as 12.4 million miles to earth and in fact orbits with the earth but was never seen because it is mostly in daylight. So there are many blind spots and yet I am sure that there was a spot on earth from where it could have been seen if we had known ahead of time what that spot was.

www.pbs.org...

As far as how many astronomers think Tyche exists or how many think Nemesis exists or how many think Planet X exists, I know you didn't take a survey so we'll just let that go.

Originally posted by Phage
I'm sorry but my frustration level has reached its limit. Rather than trying to look at the project(s) on the whole you hunt for little "gotchas" to support your idea that PLATO was placed where it is for a single secretive purpose. Combining your confirmation bias (which comes from your conviction that there is something "out there" which is being hidden) with your lack of understanding of astronomy results in a pointless discussion. I'm tired of restating the same thing every time you misinterpret, misunderstand, or take a quote out of context.

Just seems like the Nibiru Truthers are working backwards.

Start with an endgame ("Nibiru exists and is possibly hearding towards us") and then mold any and all evidence or data you can scrounge together to make it match up.

It's the classic "square peg into a round hole" idea. Truthers are gonna bash that peg with a mallet until it fits through the hole.

Originally posted by ColAngus
Just seems like the Nibiru Truthers are working backwards.

That's prety much how all the conspiracies work isn't it? Start with the premise that the NWO is out to control us, and everything flows from here - hiding niburu, HAARP, chemtrails, gnomes of zurich, british monarchy, catholic church, jews, communists, bankers....

Start with an endgame ("Nibiru exists and is possibly hearding towards us")

that is jsut so completely inaccurate - it is DEFINITEY going to hit us....

and then mold any and all evidence or data you can scrounge together to make it match up.

It's the classic "square peg into a round hole" idea. Truthers are gonna bash that peg with a mallet until it fits through the hole.

As the poster you replied to said - confirmation bias is all over the conspiracy-space!

reply to post by Phage


Just FYI for you & Co.: this is not the rant forum. No one chained you to this obscure little thread in 'Skunk Works.' Falling back on debunking tactics which attack the poster is something I've become used to dealing with here on ATS. I've been very fortunate in my life so far to be able to know and talk with a lot of very smart people. And none of them ever told me I lacked understanding or was not capable of understanding something. In fact, things are very easy to understand. What's complicated is government propaganda. And that's just the same old tangled web. Tell one lie and you're lost in a million lies to make that one lie true. Especially when it deals with something so unyielding as physical laws.

I've made a good case for my original question, "...what are they looking for?" And I would expect posters to refute that case rather than use this thread as a rant forum. Questions?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Yeah - here's your actual OP questions:

SAY WHAT??: The 7 telescopes are 14.5 centimeters in diameter (4 of them) and 1/2 meter (3 of them.) Plans for a 4-5 meter telescope and a 10 meter telescope are being tossed around. A 2.5 meter is supposed to be ready by 2012. Puny?? Tests using an infrared photometer showed that for infrared and millimeter wavelengths a S. Pole location is better than any other on earth. Previous tests at the S. Pole had indicated that seeing at the S. Pole Station is nearly twice as bad as at mid-latitude telescope locations. Now, however, it is supposedly 2-3 times clearer than mid-latitudes. What happened to cause this 180 degree turn around? Climate change or...? Looking for planets occulting stars or brightening them as they pass. Needle in a haystack business unless you know where to look. Looking at a 20 degree portion of sky to the south toward the pole. This seems to be it!! It's about as southern as you can get from earth!! Is this an oops moment or??!!...you tell me

Which ones have not actually been explained?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Well, I believe they have set up these telescopes in Antarctica to look for whatever they can see in Southern Hemisphere...I think that anything in the OP video (if it is not a lens flare, which I believe it to be), that close to the Sun would be visible wherever the Sun is visible...

I think, based on what I understand of your writing:

1) you believe something is approaching Earth at an angle below the level of our orbit around the Sun...In other words, it is an object that is orbiting the Sun at an inclination of nearly 90 degrees (much more drastic than Pluto);
2) and is still in such a position to be only viewable from the Southern Hemisphere, more particularly only at the South Pole;
3) at the same time, it can be viewed in New Zealand, but only in conjunction with the Sun...

Are these accurate statements?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


This isn't a class where things are 'explained.' This is a social networking site that engages in dialogue on various topics. The 'SAY WHAT??' points that I threw out were the items relating to the stated purpose of this extreme Antarctic Plateau observatory that I, personally and immediately, found illogical.

Other posters throughout the thread have given their ideas of what they think this observatory is looking for. Some have thought its' purpose other than stated and some have defended the stated purpose and some have used their knowledge of technical languages to explain finer points.

If you have an opinion, I'll be happy to receive it whether I agree with it or not. If I don't agree with it I will give reasons sometimes from documents located in virtual space as I have done. If there is a point that I have made that you want to contend...I'm ready.

reply to post by jeichelberg


Thank you for your input. As far as your assessments, 1-2-3, no that wouldn't be accurate. In space, from an earth observers' point of view, nothing stands still. Everything moves. Things are rotating and orbiting and groups of things are rotating and orbiting and clouds of things are obscuring and orbiting and some rogue items seem to be on their own until caught in one system or another or in between systems or a number of systems. It is very difficult to visualize how all of these work together and what effect each has on the other. There are computers that do this. It's called modeling. There are certain accepted laws about how things function in space. When things appear not to function in accordance with those laws, a reason is sought. In the past and even into the present day that reason generally takes the form of a Planet X. This is how Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were found. Their discovery provided explanations for otherwise unexplained effects.

Sometimes all of the effects don't get explained and sometimes there are new effects that present themselves and sometimes things are discovered that don't fit within existing laws.

I've never seen a photo of the alleged current Planet X et. al. except near the sun. That's how all the urban myth explanations of lens flare, sun dogs, halo etc. got into the mix. If Planet X approaches off the ecliptic from the south, it doesn't stop everything else from continuing to rotate and orbit. It may impact on the orbit and rotation, altering it to some degree. The backdrop, to a degree, or foreground for alleged Planet X is continually changing. The degree of separation from the sun by latitude was shown in my previous example in the article on the quest for the astronomical unit. This could explain why a southern latitude might show enough separation to see something outside the suns' glare although, with the naked eye, it still wasn't visible.

Up until recently there were a lot of articles on the web about objects coming in from the south and the difficulties inherent in observing those. Those articles are pretty much gone now and we're left with the very difficult task of trying to visualize how that would look and not look.

The contribution that this extreme observatory on the Antarctic Plateau has made was easily done from other existing locations that don't involve the rigors of that climate and that location. This is my assessment.

It's not possible for me to just toss the Planet X hypothetical because it is a time honored, traditional avenue of inquiry to explain unexplained effects. The only difference in these times seems to be the propaganda and secrecy that surrounds this line of questing. And the character assassination that lurks ever ready to pounce whenever this is mentioned. It wasn't always so. It's been so since 1983. This is actually a very legitimate way of looking for explanations.

reply to post by luxordelphi


So, in summary based on what I understand your posts to mean to me:

1) There may be an object, but it is not on an approach to Earth, but rather is a "rogue";
2) The telescopes in Antarctica are so insufficient (size wise) their particular placement must be for a single, specialized purpose...that purpose to identify Tyche, Nemesis, Planet X; which, can only be observed from the specific spot where the telescopes are placed, according to what it is concealed information.

Well, I have one question: What is it about this "planet," in the video that prohibits it from behaving like any other planet in the Solar System? In other words, all the other planets orbiting within our system are visible from every location on Earth. Thank you.

reply to post by jeichelberg



Because Planet X/Nemesis/Nibiru/Romulan is a Destroyer.

Destroyers don't just waltz in tossing confetti like Rip Taylor on Hollywood Squares. They creep and sneak until BAM, it's too late and extinction is nigh and the cycle starts anew. Conniving Destroyer bastard.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

This isn't a class where things are 'explained.' This is a social networking site that engages in dialogue on various topics. The 'SAY WHAT??' points that I threw out were the items relating to the stated purpose of this extreme Antarctic Plateau observatory that I, personally and immediately, found illogical.

you ask questions, you get answers - what is it about that process you think shouldn't happen?

your actual questions in the OP are not thee same as the one you suggested wasn't being answered.

If you have an opinion, I'll be happy to receive it whether I agree with it or not. If I don't agree with it I will give reasons sometimes from documents located in virtual space as I have done. If there is a point that I have made that you want to contend...I'm ready.

ditto.

reply to post by jeichelberg

1) There may be an object, but it is not on an approach to Earth, but rather is a "rogue";

No. I never said that. I mentioned a rogue object when I was describing orbits to say that there are many different situations that have been discovered. And others that have been hypothesized to explain effects.
www.time.com...

Writing in the latest issue of Nature, a team of astronomers is reporting the discovery of 10 objects roughly the size of Jupiter that seem to be on the loose, roaming the galaxy untethered to any star. And while 10 seems to be an insignificant number in a galaxy packed with 200 billion or more stars, the search was an extremely limited one. Unless the observers happened to be absurdly lucky, there could actually be a lot more of these rogue Jupiters — perhaps twice as many as there are stars in the Milky Way.

www.time.com...

The quest for Planet X always starts out with celestial objects behaving badly. Astronomers notice that a known planet, or a bunch of comets, begin moving in ways Newton's laws of motion can't explain. They propose that it's caused by the gravity of something massive and still undiscovered lurking out in the Solar System, and they head to their telescopes to search for it.

2) The telescopes in Antarctica are so insufficient (size wise) their particular placement must be for a single, specialized purpose...that purpose to identify Tyche, Nemesis, Planet X; which, can only be observed from the specific spot where the telescopes are placed, according to what it is concealed information.

No, three of the four telescopes in the array malfunctioned and there wasn't anyway to fix them because of the location which is not accessible except for a short time during the Antarctic summer. The sky survey that the fourth telescope took had already been done from an observatory in Chile and could have been repeated from another already existing non-extreme observatory in the southern hemisphere. The extreme location is not necessary for their stated purpose. The extreme hardship doesn't validate their stated purpose when that purpose can be as easily and less extremely met. An no, I don't know what they're looking for - just saying that it seems like there must be something to see there in that place in order to go to all this trouble and expense.

Well, I have one question: What is it about this "planet," in the video that prohibits it from behaving like any other planet in the Solar System? In other words, all the other planets orbiting within our system are visible from every location on Earth. Thank you.

I never said anything was in the solar system. But speaking of the solar system, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are in the solar system and can't be seen with the naked eye. Mercury is in the solar system and yet is only intermittantly viewable because of the glare of the sun. All the planets in the solar system travel behind the sun at some point and are not viewable.
www.popsci.com...

But due to the orbital dynamics of Earth and Jupiter, this particular disrobing was far more abrupt. Jupiter has been hanging out on the other side of the sun since late 2009, obscured from our view for the last few months. The belt disappeared while Jupiter was hiding, making for quite a drastic change in appearance when it recently re-emerged.

The Trojan asteroid that has been traveling with earth for God only knows how long was never viewable until 2011.
www.universetoday.com...
After it's 'discovery' it was seen:

Trojans sharing an orbit with Earth have been predicted but never found until now. Astronomers analyzing data from the asteroid-hunting WISE telescope – which ceased operations in February 2011 – found the asteroid, named 2010 TK7, and follow up observations with the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii confirmed the discovery and the object’s stealthy orbit.

If it's sun down in the arctic or in Antarctica, north of 66 1/2 degrees and south of 66 1/2 degrees respectively, for the winter, it's all down for at least 24 hours and for months as you go further north and south of those latitudes. And my example of the chords on the sun from the transit of Venus is pertinent as far as visibility by latitude of something in or enough out of the suns' glare to view.

(see next post for continuation)

reply to post by jeichelberg


(continuation of previous post)

Just to explain the Venus transit: the sun is a circle so that if something passes across the sun nearer to the top of the circle, its' passage will be shorter than something passing across the sun closer to the center. This is a view by latitude.

There's other stuff that comes into the solar system and is not seen until it is 'discovered.'
www.newscientist.com...

Researchers led by Brett Gladman of the University of British Columbia first spotted the maverick object in May. Observations suggest it is about 50 kilometres across and travels on a path that takes it from the distance of Uranus to more than twice that of Neptune (or between 20 and 70 astronomical units from the Sun, with 1 AU being the Earth-Sun distance).

Moons orbiting other planets in the solar system are still being discovered.
nineplanets.org...

Many small irregular jovian satellites have been discovered recently. Many new moons of Saturn and Uranus are also showing up.

So visibility has limits. The array on the Antarctic Plateau was also supposed to film the sky using a different filter on each telescope with one as a control. Meaning they were hoping to catch somethin that is perhaps not visible in an ordinary light spectrum. And this is the least of what is going on there. It's almost like the nations of the world have converged with the latest equipment in the Antarctic.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


A dialogue is not static. If there is a dynamic point in the dialogue where you think I should have conceded, spit it out and we'll talk. Don't be obtuse.

reply to post by luxordelphi


What an interesting discussion! Thanks Luxordelphi for the topic and your research. I am acquainted with a man who spent a year working in Antarctica and plan on asking him about the subject and if he might have some insight. I'm not very hopeful that he will, but no harm in trying.

While reading this thread I kept thinking of Chaco Canyon. Why advanced civilizations are obsessed with sky mapping to such extremes is a very important question, and I'm glad you and others are asking.

reply to post by luxordelphi

I never said anything was in the solar system. But speaking of the solar system, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are in the solar system and can't be seen with the naked eye. Mercury is in the solar system and yet is only intermittantly viewable because of the glare of the sun. All the planets in the solar system travel behind the sun at some point and are not viewable.

When I said visible, I included the use of telescopes...and of course, there are times when things are not visible...anything behind the Sun would be invisible...

But the object in the stills you presented (and shot with a camera) would be visible to the naked eye...Have you come to some sort of connection between the still photos you presented in the OP and the presence of telescopes on the South Pole? If so, would you share that connection/conclusion/hypothesis?

reply to post by Pilot


Thank you, Pilot, for your participation and your generous comment. The opportunity that you have to speak with someone who has actually been there recently is rare and valuable. Moments like that for me have always yielded surprises.

I find it very interesting that out of 180 degrees of sky, only 23-25 degrees are all that seem to be of interest on this antarctic array. Great thread op ..