Words to live by!brianv wrote:You are ruled by being fooled!
When I was a kid (in the mid-70s) I regularly saw quite persistent high-altitude trails over my house. There was no criss-crossing and they did not spread out and turn into a haze, so perhaps they were really contrails. On the other hand, less systematic spraying operations may have been in place well before the 90s, possibly since the smoke puff days of the late fifties.CluedIn wrote:Prince was 57 - I'm 55 - he said he saw the chemtrails when he was a kid - they did not start until the early 90's.
Or maybe not...Flabbergasted wrote:When I was a kid (in the mid-70s) I regularly saw quite persistent high-altitude trails over my house. There was no criss-crossing and they did not spread out and turn into a haze, so perhaps they were really contrails.
Proof of Chemtrails in 1971!
June 6, 2011
Gary Rea
...
Recently, this nagging question has prompted me to actively seek out photographic evidence of chemtrails in past decades. The earliest year I had been able to document chemtrails in, some months ago, was 1992, as revealed by a brief glimpse of a single chemtrail in a scene from the movie “White Sands,” starring Willem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke.
Then, only weeks ago, I stumbled upon a chemtrail sky in a 1985 music video by Simple Minds, for their release of the song “Alive and Kicking.”
Just when I was about to conclude that I could probably not find anything earlier, I had the earliest, yet, drop into my lap when I wasn’t even looking for it. I was watching the 1971 Steven Spielberg movie, “Duel,” which I’d seen many times before, when, all of a sudden, there was Dennis Weaver against a chemtrail sky.
What I find even more striking about these scenes is that the shots are predominately low-angle shots that are deliberately composed so as to take in large expanses of the sky. This didn’t happen by accident, folks. Hollywood movies are shot from storyboards and locations for outdoor shooting are selected well in advance and a typical location shoot can take quite a while to set up for. Given this, it is glaringly apparent that Spielberg and crew not only had foreknowledge of the chemtrail spraying, but were there when it occurred, probably not more than two hours prior to the shooting of these scenes, judging by how much the trails have been blown by the wind.
https://ppjg.me/2011/06/06/proof-of-chemtrails-in-1971/
What exactly do you mean by "legends" in this case?ICfreely wrote:I'm more curious as to when/how/why the 'legends' began (if that makes any sense).
What I am missing here is something that can explain why we experience different seasons.simonshack wrote: To be sure, professor Rao made me feel at ease - and seemed quite receptive & positively intrigued by my cosmic model. I now realize more clearly, having read a few of his own books, how incredibly fortunate I am to have chosen this particular man to be the first scholar to assess my TYCHO-SSSS: as it turns out, the most revered ancient Indian astronomers and mathematicians (of which he is one of the top experts / historians) all worked principally along the geocentric paradigm. In fact, both Nilakantha Somayaji (the great Indian mathematician of the 15th century) and Pathani Samanta (undoubtedly the greatest 'naked eye' astronomer of all times) concluded that our cosmic geometric configuration looks a bit like this:
http://scaaa.blogspot.it/p/samanta-chan ... g-for.html
That's right: it's pretty much exactly the same model as that proposed (one century after Nilakantha's calculations) by Tycho Brahe. In fact, it is also quite uncannily similar to my (upcoming) TYCHO-SSSS. That is... minus ONE thing. Let me now put you, dear Cluesforum readers, to the test:
WHAT thing would seem to be 'logically missing' - in the above cosmic model depicting 8 of our system's celestial bodies ?
I'll buy a beer (or a bunch of flowers) to whomever first submits the 'correct', logical answer!
Agreed.Flabbergasted wrote:As for the movie "Duel", the sky has that torn, chemtraily look, but it is far from open-and-shut evidence.
By "legends" I mean the explanations, theories, conspiracies, myths, etc...Flabbergasted wrote:What exactly do you mean by "legends" in this case?
simonshack wrote:WHAT thing would seem to be 'logically missing' - in the above cosmic model depicting 8 of our system's celestial bodies ?
Classical planets
The seven classical planets are those easily seen with the naked eye, and were thus known to ancient astrologers. They are the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Sometimes, the Sun and Moon were referred to as "the lights" or the "luminaries". Vesta and Uranus can also just be seen with the naked eye, though no ancient culture appears to have taken note of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_i ... al_planets
Modern planets
Since the invention of the telescope, Western astrology has incorporated Uranus, Neptune, Ceres, Pluto, and other bodies into its methodology. The Indian and Chinese astrologies have tended to retain the ancient seven-planet system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_i ... rn_planets
…
Tycho [Brahe] held an oration at the beginning of a guest lecture course on astronomy that he held at the University of Copenhagen defending the validity of astrology, a not unusual presentation in that age. Rheticus’ public oration on being appointed professor for mathematics in Wittenberg was on the same subject. Tycho an adherent of the Renaissance microcosmos/macrocosmos philosophy, as above so below, also believed that alchemy served the same function on earth as astrology in the heavens but both were in his opinion ‘scientific’ and not mystical. Tycho’s interest in alchemy centred on his belief in and practice of Paracelsian medicine, a leading medical theory in some circles in Europe at the time and consisted mainly of research into and production of medicines.
…
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/02/12 ... -in-magic/
Geocentrism: Was Galileo Wrong?
…
There have been two main varieties of geocentrism that have been offered in the past two thousand years. They are usually labelled the Ptolemaic and Tychonian views, for their chief proponents, the ancient astronomer Ptolemy (died about AD 150) and the early modern astronomer Tycho Brahe (died 1601). Both agreed that the earth neither moves through space nor rotates on its axis, and that it is in the center of the universe, but they disagreed on whether the planets rotate around the earth or the sun. Some modern geocentrists, however, apparently admit the earth rotates but not that it moves through space. We will therefore organize our discussion under two headings: ``Does the earth rotate?'' (on its axis) and ``Does the earth move around the sun?''
…
When Isaac Newton proposed that the same force which causes an apple to fall from a tree also holds the moon in orbit around the earth and the earth in orbit around the sun, he provided a mechanism for the motion of the planets (not to mention the stars and galaxies). Newton's law of gravity, though somewhat refined by Einstein in our century, makes it possible for us to send space vehicles out into orbit, not only around the earth, but also around the sun, and to calculate the positions of these spaceships with great accuracy, a feat impossible with any kind of theory based on geocentrism. And Newton's laws of motion show that the motion of the earth around the sun is really the motion of both around their common center of gravity, which is nearly at the same place as the sun's center. The earth is certainly not the center of the sun's motion!
Robert C. Newman, PhD, astrophysics
Biblical Theological Seminary
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/geocntct.htm
I know, I know, dear IC. Tycho isn't my all-time astronomical hero - since he believed to his death that Earth didn't revolve around its axis (and that all the stars revolved around us). Yet his lifelong observations and his basic geometry of our system were spot on - and that was what inspired me to look into our 'solar system' in the first place. So I won't bother renaming my model now - and just specify (with a disclaimer of sorts) in my footnotes - as I've already mentioned on this forum some time ago - that it was Tycho's assistant Longomontanus who 'gave' Earth a daily rotation...ICfreely wrote:Dear Simon,
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I was under the impression that Brahe's model was geostatic - Earth neither moves through 'space' nor rotates on its 'axis'. Would it be fair to say your spinning Earth model is more in line with Galileo?
And - I beg you - don't mention that viciously arrogant Galileo scumbag/ plagiarist (who clearly staged / faked his "papal persecution") ever again."Longomontanus, Tycho's sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and fulfilled both tasks in his voluminous Astronomia Danica (1622). Regarded as the testament of Tycho, the work was eagerly received in seventeenth-century astronomical literature. But unlike Tycho's, his geoheliocentric model gave the Earth a daily rotation as in the models of Ursus and Roslin, and which is sometimes called the 'semi-Tychonic' system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_ ... gomontanus
The North Star?simonshack wrote:Please feel free to have another go at my "missing thing" quiz!