 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Amateur Astronomy / July 2008ALIENS ARE REAL, REVEALS FORMER ASTRONAUT
< MOON-WALKER CLAIMS ALIEN CONTACT COVER-UP < ==============================- < > "I happen to have been privileged enough > to be in on the fact that we've been visited > on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real. < > "It's been well covered up by all our governments > for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out > and some of us have been privileged to have been > briefed on some of it." < > -- Dr. Edgar Mitchell < ==================================== < From news.com.au -- The Daily Telegraph -- July 24, 2008 < FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr, Edgar Mitchell -- a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission -- has stunningly claimed aliens exist. < And he says extra-terrestrials have visited earth on several occasions =- but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades. < Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.' < He said supposedly real-life ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head. < Chillingly, he claimed our technology is "not nearly as sophisticated" as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned "we would be been one by now". < Dr Mitchell, along with with Apollo 14 commander Alan Shepard, holds the record for the longest ever moon walk, at nine hours and 17 minutes following their 1971 mission. < "I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real," Dr Mitchell said. < "It's been well covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so, but slowly it's leaked out and some of us have been privileged to have been briefed on some of it. < "I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes,- we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit." < Dr Mitchell, who has a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering and a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics claimed Roswell was real and similar alien visits continue to be investigated. < He told the astonished Kerrang! radio host Nick Margerrison: "This is really starting to open up. I think we're headed for real disclosure and some serious organisations are moving in that direction." < Mr Margerrison said: "I thought I'd stumbled on some sort of stronaut humour but he was absolutely serious that aliens are definitely out there and there's no debating it." < Officials from NASA, however, were quick to play the comments down. < In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs NASA is not involved in any sort of cover=up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe. < 'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.' < < MORE (A Whole Lot More) < http://youtube.com/watch?v=RhNdxdveK7c < http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc533.htm < http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSOSLC-U5cU&feature=related < http://youtube.com/watch?v=-7ByWlRZlq0&feature=related < ============================== < > IS THE COVER-UP AS BIG AS THIS ONE? < > PETRIFIED HUMAN BONES, TEETH, SOFT ORGANS > UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE MAN AS OLD AS COAL < > Some Mind-Boggling Discoveries Between Coal Veins < http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z8femur.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/FOSSILS08/HumanFemur.jpg < http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skully,jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FirstDiscovery.jpg < http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/zedjaw.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestTool.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/MoreFossils.jpg http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder1.jpg < Ed Conrad http://www.edconrad.com Man as Old as Coal Man As Dumb As Coal wrote: > FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr, Edgar Mitchell -- a veteran > of the Apollo 14 mission -- has stunningly claimed aliens exist. This guy is a total lunatic and always has been. Unfortunately Astronauts weren't always chosen for their critical thinking skills. Need I mention the diapers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell A cover up of this magnitude is completely impossible. Anybody who thinks that a western government could silence thousands of astronomers, physicists, and other scientists has seen too many movies and has lost touch with reality. Oh, and I'd have to be in on it too.  SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye >MOON-WALKER CLAIMS >ALIEN CONTACT COVER-UP Given that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels of government and government agencies, it's hardly surprising that a few managed to become astronauts. This guy has absolutely no qualifications that give these particular ideas any credibility at all. Best just to ignore him, as you should any harmless lunatic. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > Given that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels of > government and government agencies, it's hardly surprising that a few [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chris L Peterson We are privileged indeed to have a fully qualified psychiatrist on the forum who can diagnose lunacy without ever having met the patient. :-) Of course I can see where you are coming from. The whole Ufology thing is a freak's circus. They'll believe in anything which presents itself as evidential proof of the existence of whatever whim is hand fed to them this week. You only have to look at their forums ansd websites and the idiocy on You Tube to see the laughable quality of their pictorial evidence. Anybody who's been around the block in aircraft recognition and photography, meteorology, astronomy, wildlife and birdwatching would sneer at the images and videos flaunted as "absolute proof" of the existence of UFOs, All of which must inevitably lead to the conclusion that these "craft" are manned by small grey ET persons with a taste for geometric destruction in farmer's wheat fields near ancient British monuments. But what do you say to witnesses who have seen the inexplicable in the presence of others in daylight? After years of the poison gnawing at their insides they simply cannot dismiss the sighting as any man made object or natural phenomenon? Let's completely ignore the dancing lights in the sky at the hands of a chronic Parkinson's patient with a cheap mobile phone equipped with a camera of miserable quality. Let's dismiss the astronomical commonplace and the Chinese lanterns and the helium filled balloons and the ISS and all the satellites "up there". What comfort do you offer to the intelligent and experienced observer of the totally inexplicable seen in broad daylight in the presence of others? How does one become qualified in believing one's own eyes when presented with the extremely unlikely at uncomfortably close quarters? Should the witnesses wait patiently for half a century for their particular "top secret flying project" to be finally exposed to the public gaze? What if they never do become common knowledge despite the waiting and the endless wondering? Must they die with the knowledge that they are prone to group hallucinations and telepathic exchange of images of apparently solid objects? Even though their highly trained colleagues can confirm a radar trace of the objects seen? Objects that other very reliable witnesses in the air and on the ground saw too? Would you doubt the integrity of somebody who admitted they had seen a B1 bomber or a B52? Both are highly unlikely observations but not remotely impossible. Where does one study to become adequately qualified in seeing B52s or B1s? Would this same qualification apply to UFO observation? Or is that just wishful thinking? ;-) I have little to say other than: "Show me the evidence." From what little I've dug up, it appears that Edgar Mitchell got his information second-hand from one or more old-timer who was presumedly associated with the Roswell incident. For whatever reasons, Mr. Mitchell chose to believe what he heard. There's no shortage of people who are more than willing to jump to irrational conclusions based upon the skimpiest of evidence. The danger is greatly magnified when someone who wants to believe something is provided with something that can be construed to fit their belief. More likely explanations are often ignored by such people. Of couse, none of this means that Mr. Mitchell is wrong, but until I'm presented with some real, unambiguous evidence I'll remain a skeptic. Bill Greer To sketch is to see. http://cejour.blogspot.com http://www.rangeweb.net/~sketcher > Of couse, none of this means that Mr. Mitchell is wrong, but until I'm > presented with some real, unambiguous evidence I'll remain a skeptic. But there's the rub isn't it? The very fact that some people are so careless to believe things with little or no hard evidence renders their "opinions" both meaningless and uninteresting. SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But there's the rub isn't it? The very fact that some people are so > careless to believe things with little or no hard evidence renders their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > To reply take out your eye Like those who claim to believe that incontrovertible evidence exists that the most significant cause of current global warming is man-made CO2? All those folks demonstrate is their ignorance of real science and the earth's history of constantly going through long cycles of weather changes ( for millions of years ) that can last for hundreds of years--before cars were even imagined or, indeed, before man even walked the earth? The self-styled "greens" are pathetic--their guru, Al Gore, refuses to debate the subject with anyone. Wonder why? On Jul 28, 5:50 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like those who claim to believe that incontrovertible evidence exists > that the most significant cause of current global warming is man-made > CO2? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere certainly can cause global warming, by a simple and well-understood mechanism - it is transparent to light and short-wave infrared, such as comes from the very hot Sun, but it absorbs long-wave infrared, such as emitted by the warm Earth, and is warmed by that. So, if there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even by a tiny amount, the Earth will gain more heat each day than it radiates off to space at night, until the Earth becomes hotter. The vast majority of scientists who are studying the question agree about the problem of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit, they are a contributing factor that is under our control, so if we don't want the world to get warmer, they are what we have to change. There are a few dissenters; some are generally believed to be eccentrics, others are transparently shills for industries that might be affected adversely by a concerted campaign to stop global warming. Of course, drastic cuts to energy consumption would have bad human consequences too - bad enough that we might have to tolerate global warming, and, say, the loss of the Great Barrier Reef to oceanic acidity, if we had no other choices. But we do have another choice. It's called nuclear power. So if you want to criticize people concerned for the environment, you should direct your fire at the *real* crazies and fanatics in the environmentalist movement. John Savard > On Jul 28, 5:50 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > John Savard We can agree on one thing--those opposed to nuclear power are also Luddites with an agenda. Why, btw, are Mars and Jupiter also warming up? Cars?? What caused previous warming cycles on earth before cars? Your general statements are totally unsupported by facts. We have accurate measurements of temperatures all other the earth including all the oceans which make up 70% of the surface, for the last 200 years, accurate to 1 or 2 degrees and consistently measured? Or perhaps you rely on the infamous "hockey stick" nonsense? Pathetic. >Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere certainly can cause global warming, >by a simple and well-understood mechanism... It's hard to argue science with somebody who doesn't understand it, and replaces logic with political dogma. You're not going to convince this flat earther any more than you can convince Kelleher. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > You're not going to convince this > flat earther any more than you can convince Kelleher. Unlike Mr. Kelleher, however, there are more lurkers who believe what he believes, and this belief can cause more damage. John Savard > > You're not going to convince this > > flat earther any more than you can convince Kelleher. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John Savard Science is not about "beliefs". It is about what can be proven after rigorous testing of various theories. Computer "models" don't qualify. We can't predict weather one month in advance but we *know* that in 50 years temps will grow on average 1.5 degrees "creating global disaster"?? Pathetic. What are your science credential? I have a doctorate from a major US university. On Jul 29, 8:48 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Science is not about "beliefs". It is about what can be proven after > rigorous testing of various theories. Computer "models" don't qualify. > We can't predict weather one month in advance but we *know* that in 50 > years temps will grow on average 1.5 degrees "creating global > disaster"?? It's true we can't predict the weather one month in advance. However, for the last 100 years, people could predict average temperatures in the Northern and Southern hemispheres for each month quite well. Thus, our failure to predict the weather a month in advance just means that we aren't going to be able to predict *the day of the week* 50 years hence that New York will be flooded. Science certainly isn't about wishful thinking, and there's a danger of this on both sides when one is attempting to use whatever we do know about climate to determine if we should take drastic measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions. News items with such information as - Permafrost in Russia is melting over peat bogs, threatening the release of large amounts of methane, a potent short-term greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere - Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, while preventing global warming from being as bad as some pessimistic forecasts have indicated, has led to an increased acidity which may threaten the Great Barrier Reef are cause for concern. In normal life, we keep our homes free of fire hazards without waiting for proof that there's a problem. It would seem to be only normal prudence, therefore, to ensure that human activities are regulated so that their impact on the global environment will continue to be - as they had formerly been - completely negligible. The fact that a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels beyond historically known levels can even be measured is cause for concern, because the consequences are not known for certain. We should not be taking chances with the survival of humanity. Unfortunately, sometimes, we have little choice. If the United States had decided, say, in 1935 to give up burning coal and gasoline, aside from the fact that it wouldn't have been able to feed all its people using pre-Industrial Revolution technology, World War II and/or the Cold War would have been lost, which would also have been doom for humanity. Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear, though, helps with *both* the threat from al-Qaeda *and* the threat from global warming. Unlike switching to windmills and stuff like that, which would seriously impair our ability to meet challenges of foreign military power. > Pathetic. What are your science credential? I have a doctorate from a > major US university. I have a Master's degree in Physics from a minor Canadian university. John Savard > On Jul 29, 8:48 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > John Savard Actually, we are not too far apart. I just don't think it is appropriate to commit to spend trillions of $$ on a "maybe" when we now have millions of people dying (yes, millions, right now ) of preventable causes. Mankind has lived through many warming cycles in the past and adjusted just fine. The "chicken little" predictions of the Greens are, well, pathetic. Perhaps they ( the Greens ) have so little regard for the human life CURRENTLY at risk because they are mostly dark-skinned peoples. The ultimate in prejudice. Fatuous, self-centered a.ses. On Jul 29, 10:50 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mankind has lived through many warming cycles in > the past and adjusted just fine. Well, back then, they could migrate without worrying about getting an immigration visa first. Today, with nuclear weapons instead of stones and spears, anything which might lead to warfare is not necessarily small and local. And they didn't have trillions of dollars tied up in the architecture of large port cities. Of course the icecaps can melt without turning the Earth into Venus; global warming will only cause big problems, not human extinction - at least not directly. John Savard > On Jul 29, 10:50 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John Savard So you worry about the oceans raising 20 feet in the next 50 years as predicted by Al Gore?? You flunk--do the math--if you are capable. And your selective response is pretty weak debate technique. And if you refer to the recent UN Report--most of the signatories were politicians and Green lobbyists, not serious scientists. Get your facts straight and you will be more persuasive. On Jul 29, 12:21 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 10:50 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > politicians and Green lobbyists, not serious scientists. Get your > facts straight and you will be more persuasive. On Jul 29, 12:21 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > And if you refer to the recent UN Report--most of the signatories were > politicians and Green lobbyists, not serious scientists. No, I'm not referring to that. Serious scientific journals, and other legitimate scientific publications, from Nature to New Scientist and Scientific American, that have addressed this issue are consistent in warning the public of this as a genuine threat. John Savard > >Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere certainly can cause global warming, > >by a simple and well-understood mechanism... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com Your use of the English language is pathetic. Of course, CO2 *can* cause global warming--so can simple water vapor with much greater effect. The issue is whether MAN-MADE CO2 is a MAJOR cause of the current global warming. No such connection has been conclusively drawn. As for the Greens' computer models--GIGO. You are either very crafty with words or incredibly gullible. Why no debate out of Al Gore is the case is so simple to make?? Gore is getting rich ( with a huge carbon footprint of his own ) by making fools out of the Greenies. He is laughing all the way to the bank.. On Jul 29, 8:43 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why no > debate out of Al Gore is the case is so simple to make?? Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. He could certainly be wrong. But that global warming is real is the consensus of the real scientists doing climatology work. John Savard > >Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere certainly can cause global warming, > >by a simple and well-understood mechanism... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com What is it that your side intend to do with observations which specifically demonstrate a far more delicate approach to explaining the seasons. There is a 360 degree orbital component attached to the Earth heliocentric motion just as there is a 360 degree orbital component from observations by Hubble of the planet Uranus - http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/ A reasonable person determines that axial rotation determines rotational orientation, causes day and night and basically that is it.Then there is the second observed motion as the planet orbits the Sun in a specific way,this change is clearly seperate to axial rotation/orientation and given that there are natural variations in the noon cycle due to this change,the answer has to be an orbital component. Again,what point is there discussing climate if the annual seasonal cycle,at its barest daylight/darkness cycle effect,is not explained correctly ?.Even if observers to go their own way with Ra/Dec observing with no pretense to having an interest in structural astronomy,I still have to find individuals who can actually discern that the explanation for the seasons is not so simple or rather,it involves an overlooked orbital component with an annual 360 degree feature. Do you want to ignore it forever just to praise the guys in the 17th century who got it wrong or even ignore that the original insight by the great Copernicus needs modifying ?.With many ecosystems suffering from changing climate conditions,a good place to start is to look at the behavior between axial and orbital components,not because I say so but because they almost beg a better interpretation. > What is it that your side intend to do with observations which > specifically demonstrate a far more delicate approach to explaining > the seasons. We use them to explain and illustrate our clumsy ham-handed empirical approach to explainng the seasons. And, strange to relate, we've managed to fool everyone except you. I think that if you want to change this, you will need to understand what our approach is really saying better, and to explain yourself clearer. While I think that if you ever did go that route, you would find out where you went wrong, that's only true if you are wrong, and you really don't have another choice - except the one you are taking, repating yourself and receiving little but derision for your pains. John Savard > > What is it that your side intend to do with observations which > > specifically demonstrate a far more delicate approach to explaining [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > John Savard Go ahead,explain the seasons as represntative of Chris,Brian and the rest here and be sure to incorporate the basis of your explanation,the unmodified approach of Copernicus - "..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De Revolutionibus Make sure you explain the seperate issue of the global variations in the natural noon cycles using the same motions and orientations to the Sun. Better still,any institution who is willing to have a look at Uranus and its unique features can come to a more productive conclusion based on isolating orbital motion - http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/ I already know how you think about the seasons but for some others here I find it difficult to believe they would willingly ignore the fascinating motion which can be observationally discerned from the time lapse footage of Uranus which replaces the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt with a new 360 degree orbital component as a location turns with respect to the central Sun and takes an entire orbit to do it. > Go ahead,explain the seasons as represntative of Chris,Brian and the > rest here and be sure to incorporate the basis of your explanation,the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De > Revolutionibus The inclination of the Earth _to_ the Sun does change in the course of a year. This is indeed why the days are longer in the Summer and shorter in the Winter. But today we call that the direction of the Earth's axis _staying the same_, because Polaris is the pole star all year long. The inclination _to the Sun_ changes because the Earth's orbit brings it from one side of the Sun to the other. I don't have a copy of De Revolutionibus Orbis Coelestium in the original at my elbow - I do have the volume by Hawking, but that doesn't include a public-domain translation - but even without moving to look at my copy, I would be extremely surprised if Copernicus were not fully aware of this, and if he did anything other than the exact same thing modern astronomers do - use the variable inclination with respect to the Sun as an argument for the heliocentric system, which allows that variable inclination to be the effect of a fixed inclination plus motion around the Sun. John Savard > > Go ahead,explain the seasons as represntative of Chris,Brian and the > > rest here and be sure to incorporate the basis of your explanation,the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a year. This is indeed why the days are longer in the Summer and > shorter in the Winter. Observations of the Earth from space demonstrate exactly the same feature as Uranus based on the slow change of a location through 360 degrees - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s Observations at points close to the Equator show no appreciable variations in daylight/darkness as expected from cause and effect - http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Nanyuki+ Again, I do not mind you as you are a trekkie but I am surprised at others in allowing you to speak for them.I guess dignity is in short supply at the moment. > But today we call that the direction of the Earth's axis _staying the > same_, because Polaris is the pole star all year long. The inclination > _to the Sun_ changes because the Earth's orbit brings it from one side > of the Sun to the other. You are doing a fine job representing the rest of the particpants here and their understanding of the seasonal/astronomical connection.It is with great confidence that humanity can face subjects such as climate change when the big institutions have a full grasp of the annual seasonal cycles that have been occuring for much of the planet's history. The seasonal explanation is not so simple yet engaging the variations in the natural noon cycle and then working the dual motions (diurnal rotation and the slow orbital change of a location with respect to the Sun,the true explanation becomes easier with familiarity.With the time lapse footage of Uranus showing the specific way a planet orbits the central star it amounts to either people seeing that seperate orbital componentor not - http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/ > I don't have a copy of De Revolutionibus Orbis Coelestium in the > original at my elbow - I do have the volume by Hawking, but that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John Savard As Chris and Brian are in this thread,I will make them compliant with your explanation and thanks for your technical honesty in the matter. > Go ahead,explain the seasons as represntative of Chris,Brian and the > rest here and be sure to incorporate the basis of your explanation,the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of > days and nights would be observed." > Copernicus Chapter 11 De Revolutionibus Ah, yes. Here we go: http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html Copernicus goes on to discuss the matter further through a geometric demonstration, and by drawing a *diagram*, but then he does end up saying... "It is clear therefore how the two motions, I mean, the motion of the center and the motion in inclination, by their combined effect make the earth's axis remain in the same direction and in very much the same position, and make all these phenomena appear as though they were motions of the sun." The Earth's axis remains in the same direction and the same position; thus, the motion of the Earth's axis is an *apparent* motion from the geocentric system! Copernicus is not confused, we are not confused, only you are confused. John Savard > > Go ahead,explain the seasons as represntative of Chris,Brian and the > > rest here and be sure to incorporate the basis of your explanation,the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > days and nights would be observed." > > Copernicus Chapter 11 De Revolutionibus For people who refuse to recognise his main argument for orbital heliocentric motion based on apparent retrogrades resolved from an orbitally moving Earth (as opposed to Newton's hypothetical observer on the Sun),it is quite amazing to see Copernicus brought up in the outrigger of seasonal effects from astronomical causes. Just goes to show how much work is concentrated in such a focused way. > Ah, yes. Here we go: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > geocentric system! Copernicus is not confused, we are not confused, > only you are confused. The reconfiguration to the seasonal explanation is that axial rotation generates the daylight/darkness cycle ,the rotational orientation and can be left at that.The seasonal variations in the daylight/darkness cycle comes from somewhere else,specifically the fascinating way a planet orbits the Sun for in order for rotational orientation to remain fixed in one direction in space,a location must slowly turn with respect to the central Sun.- http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg For the discerning,the change in the orientation of the rings is not a product of axial rotation (which produces rotational orientation and subsequently the Equatorial location of the rings) but a change in a property belonging to the orbital motion of the planet.Despite what you may think,I suspect a few have already started to see how the whole thing fits neatly together with the seperate issue of the variations in the natural noon cycle . > John Savard Knowing that you are an avid trekkie ,this is my favorite Star Trek excerpt - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8 Even Crinklaw would crack a smile at that one !. ---snip--- > Knowing that you are an avid trekkie ,this is my favorite Star Trek > excerpt - > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8 > > Even Crinklaw would crack a smile at that one !. Hi The Earth rotates, on its axis, relatively constantly with smal variation over the year. This is on the order of a few milliseconds. Some of the things effecting this are the molten core, tides and water retention. The Earth slows down in its rotation, on its axis, over time because it transfers some rotational initial to the Moon and Sun through tidal drag. The axis of the earth is tilted relative to the plane of the orbit around the sun. This creates the basic seasons. This by itself would not create the shift seen in the local solar noon. The next biggest factor is that the Earths orbit around the Sun is not circular but instead elliptical. This means that the Earths path around the Sun slows when approaching aphelion of the orbit. Since the Earth is still turning at a relatively constant rate, and the tilt of the earths axis is almost aligned with the major axis of the orbit, the solar noon happens earlier than a time of the rate of rotation on its axis would predict. As the Earth moves closer to the perihelion, the orbital motion increase, causing the solar noon to happen latter. Now, there is a secondary effect because the tilt of the Earth's axis is not perfectly aligned to the major axis of the elliptical orbit. This causes the slight notchs as seen in the graph of the "equation of time". One other factor needs to be included and that is the fact the the Earth axis is precessing as well as is the orbits major axis. The Earth axis is precessing about twice as fast as the orbits major axis in opposite directions. This total effect is causing the difference between the seasonal year and the siderial year. This is all there is to it. Why all the fuss. I believe that most everyone in this group understands this, even though they might not know the fine details. So, what exactly is your argument? Dwight Thank you Dwight for that hallucinogenic empirical explanation for the variations in the natural noon cycle and the seasons .Maybe someday the learning institutions will get serious about the motions of the Earth and their effects but until then you may as well enjoy the scripted fiction most here are addicted to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8 On Jul 30, 10:27 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ---snip--- > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > details. So, what exactly is your argument? > Dwight blues517@hotmail.com: > >MOON-WALKER CLAIMS > >ALIEN CONTACT COVER-UP Chris L Peterson: > Given that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels of > government and government agencies, it's hardly surprising that a few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ideas any credibility at all. Best just to ignore him, as you should any > harmless lunatic. This only confirms that you are part of the cover-up conspiracy. C'mon, blow the whistle. Davoud SignatureDon't re-elect the past. Vote for the future: Obama in 2008! usenet *at* davidillig dawt com Chris L Peterson: > Given that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels of > government and government agencies, it's hardly surprising that a few > managed to become astronauts. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that I resent your limiting your remarks to government. It would have been more accurate to say (alphabetically) that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels in academia, government, and industry. Or do you really believe that it is only in government that fools and idiots can rise to the top? I think it would be equally accurate to say that geniuses with great common sense can and do rise to the highest levels in academia, government, and industry. It would be interesting to know which of the three fields I named has the most geniuses. I know that the relative number of certifiable geniuses in certain parts in government -- The Department of State, the Intelligence Community, the National Laboratories, NASA, NIST, NWS -- is phenomenal. That doesn't mean that many other agencies are not genius-heavy; I mention only of those with which I have some personal knowledge. I would also note that Dr. Mitchell, the astronaut in question, may be neither a fool nor an idiot, merely delusional. Geniuses with a great deal of common sense are subject to becoming delusional, especially as they get old. Dr. Mitchell is 77, I believe. Davoud SignatureDon't re-elect the past. Vote for the future: Obama in 2008! usenet *at* davidillig dawt com >Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that I resent your limiting your remarks >to government. It would have been more accurate to say (alphabetically) >that fools and idiots can and do rise to the highest levels in >academia, government, and industry. Or do you really believe that it is >only in government that fools and idiots can rise to the top? No limitation to government was intended. It's just (currently) the most obvious. The point being, if an idiot can be president, that pretty much opens up every other line of work to the same possibility. >I would also note that Dr. Mitchell, the astronaut in question, may be >neither a fool nor an idiot, merely delusional. Geniuses with a great >deal of common sense are subject to becoming delusional, especially as >they get old. Dr. Mitchell is 77, I believe. This guy has entertained these notions for many years, however- from a much younger age than the usual forms of senility set in. He also believes in ESP, healing from a distance, psychics, and all sorts of good things. Maybe there's a more clinical term than those I used, but I'd still classify him as a nut. Fortunately, a fairly harmless one. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > No limitation to government was intended. It's just (currently) the most > obvious. The point being, if an idiot can be president, that pretty much > opens up every other line of work to the same possibility. Without necessarily disagreeing with your original point (how's that for hedging?), I think this conclusion is flawed. It's not clear that the U.S. presidency selects more for non-idiots than any other line of work. SignatureBrian Tung <brian@aero.org> NOTE: Below addresses changing soon... The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html My posts do not represent the views of either Aerospace of USC/ISI. >Without necessarily disagreeing with your original point (how's that for >hedging?), I think this conclusion is flawed. It's not clear that the >U.S. presidency selects more for non-idiots than any other line of work. I quite agree, although the point was largely rhetorical. For a more accurate analogy, the one given earlier about astronauts and diapers is quite good. In general, there is a tendency to believe that people in high positions, or those who have achieved a high level of success, are somehow more intelligent, more rational, more credible- more "whatever" is appropriate to the discussion. That is, of course, not necessarily the case, and there is an entire area of logical fallacy based around that false assumption. While I think it likely that the average astronaut is more intelligent than the average politician, I think the chance of either entertaining odd, irrational ideas is about the same. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > While I think it likely that the average astronaut is more intelligent > than the average politician, I think the chance of either entertaining [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com How about the chances for "entertaining odd, irrational ideas "of a self-styled astronomer, physicist, and mountain man who is in record as believing that animal life is more valuable than human life? Put a nutcase like that in the White House? I don't think so. >How about the chances for "entertaining odd, irrational ideas "of a >self-styled astronomer, physicist, and mountain man who is in record >as believing that animal life is more valuable than human life? Put a >nutcase like that in the White House? > >I don't think so. Is this hypothetical person running for President? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > Without necessarily disagreeing with your original point (how's that for > hedging?), I think this conclusion is flawed. It's not clear that the > U.S. presidency selects more for non-idiots than any other line of work. > > Brian Tung Isn't it usually the case that idiocy at the top is balanced out by the efforts of a vast patriotic and loyal team in the ranks below? When the illiterate, illegal immigrant, Oval Office cleaners each have double the IQ of the president then the government staff must exert their abilities to the utmost simply to survive. To fail is not an option when the president will simply identity the subservient as responsible for any failures. Since they were not elected they will always lose their jobs in preference to the moron who was. Over time this inevitably leads to a dumbing down of government employees until the illiterate, illegal immigrant, Oval Office cleaners are the only employees with any intelligence left in the White House. Since they are all far too busy working at two full time jobs just to afford basic health insurance for their kids they haven't any time left over to make any sensible suggestions about running the country. Or, for that matter, the world. So, the only intelligent race left in the White House are aliens but there is nobody in government who understands their language. > I would also note that Dr. Mitchell, the astronaut in question, may be > neither a fool nor an idiot, merely delusional. Geniuses with a great > deal of common sense are subject to becoming delusional, especially as > they get old. Dr. Mitchell is 77, I believe. I would prefer to believe he is simply being misquoted. His past interest in things like ESP could just make a hoax more credible. John Savard >> I would also note that Dr. Mitchell, the astronaut in question, may be >> neither a fool nor an idiot, merely delusional. Geniuses with a great >> deal of common sense are subject to becoming delusional, especially as >> they get old. Dr. Mitchell is 77, I believe. Ya..tell that to John McCain !! Anyway, I suppose all you nay sayers and closeminded pricks will need to see some head doctors if aliens really are here. The laugh will be on y'all. > Anyway, I suppose all you nay sayers and closeminded pricks will > need to see some head doctors if aliens really are here. You be sure to get back to us about that when it happens, OK? > The laugh will be on y'all. Absolutely. Until then, good luck. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > Anyway, I suppose all you nay sayers and closeminded pricks will need to > see some head doctors if aliens really are here. The laugh will be on y'all. I respectfully suggest that if you can only make your arguments by calling people names and can't tell the difference between being closed minded and being rational then perhaps you are the one who needs a "head doctor." >> Anyway, I suppose all you nay sayers and closeminded pricks will need to >> see some head doctors if aliens really are here. The laugh will be on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people names and can't tell the difference between being closed minded and > being rational then perhaps you are the one who needs a "head doctor." Well Mr. Rational. why don't you organize an anti-sci-fi campaign for hollywood complete with placards and boycott all the movie companies..and while you are at it call for the abolishment of STAR TREK.. >>> Anyway, I suppose all you nay sayers and closeminded pricks will need to >>> see some head doctors if aliens really are here. The laugh will be on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are at it > call for the abolishment of STAR TREK.. Not before you can show that you can add 2 and two and not get 7. We all know who you are. > Not before you can show that you can add 2 and two and not get 7. > > We all know who you are. And we all know WHAT you are ! > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Oh God ! The worse of the bunch. He even forgets what he said 10 minutes ago it seems. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.