Axis shift nonsense making the rounds again

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Art Bell unfortunately made a couple of references to this on his show and it's apparently making the rounds again. A search for this quote gets a lot of hits:
https://www.google.com/search?q=All+the+elders+confirmed+that+the+Earth+has+shifted,+wobbled+or+tilted+toward+the+North.&oq=All+the+elders+confirmed+that+the+Earth+has+shifted,+wobbled+or+tilted+toward+the+North.&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

Not sure which one was first this time around, but the original source for this nonsense was this documentary vid from around 2009: http://www.isuma.tv/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change


I believe this is a synopsis of the relevant bits:

 

MikeG

Senior Member.
I know next to nothing about this particular topic.

Is it possible that the Inuit are speaking metaphorically?



http://astro-canada.ca/_en/a4102.php


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/inuit-myth-and-legend/
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I know next to nothing about this particular topic.

Is it possible that the Inuit are speaking metaphorically?

No, but we are only privy to a translation of what they are supposedly saying. The translation captions in the film leave no doubt that they are supposedly saying the sun and stars are LITERALLY in the wrong place in the sky.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
No, but we are only privy to a translation of what they are supposedly saying.
Pretty sure they're actually saying "I don't want these. Give me big shoes."
http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/nike.asp


In all seriousness, yes, we need to consider that the translations may be slanted,
and/or that they are responses to misleading, leading questions.

Never mind that an actual new "tilt" would have all sorts of measurable consequences
that have not happened.

In short, thanks for the claims, we'll have science look innuit!
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Thing is, the Earth's axis does wobble, it's known as precession. The location of the celestial pole is constantly drifting slowly in a circle that takes about 25,000 years to complete. About 10,000 years ago the North Celestial Pole was on the opposite side of the constellation Draco. So it's a real phenomenon that's just misunderstood by conspiracists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

1542294aa9156ea9e88b98bfb4895a2d.gif
The path of the north celestial pole among the stars due to axial precession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_N.gif
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Thing is, the Earth's axis does wobble, it's known as precession. The location of the celestial pole is constantly drifting slowly in a circle that takes about 25,000 years to complete. About 10,000 years ago the North Celestial Pole was on the opposite side of the constellation Draco. So it's a real phenomenon that's just misunderstood by conspiracists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

1542294aa9156ea9e88b98bfb4895a2d.gif
The path of the north celestial pole among the stars due to axial precession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_N.gif


That's only known to a few. They have other "evidence" they usually point to before they ever get into that. Mostly it's pointing out articles about recent large earthquakes where it says Earth was "tilted on its axis". Never mind that it's only a few centimeters at the poles and has been happening for millions of years. Then they will use magnetic pole drift and pretend that's the same thing.

PS: And the "Sun rose two days early in Greenland" thing.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
504ec5a4100bbe5f750c1c8414359f07.jpg
Some kind of Ancient race who look each generation for a Human Champion to combat evil, apparently.
I was once in band who made a concept album about trying to find a cassette copy of this concept album. 5 The Quest for The Elder.jpg
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Thing is I'm on fringe of the UK astronomical community, I have friends who are fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society and follow their blogs etc. And their silence on this is deafening, you would have thought that some one somewhere would have mentioned SOMETHING at least...

... unless the NWO has brought off every amateur stargazer, telescope owner and the like in the world!
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Thing is I'm on fringe of the UK astronomical community, I have friends who are fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society and follow their blogs etc. And their silence on this is deafening, you would have thought that some one somewhere would have mentioned SOMETHING at least...

... unless the NWO has brought off every amateur stargazer, telescope owner and the like in the world!

Obvious just doesn't cover it. No one with ANY knowledge of astronomy could possibly believe this story, but that seems to include quite a lot of people. A few years ago I even corresponded with the Inuit guy who made that film. He said things like that he had "noticed" the sky being different in Anchorage than where he lived. Something about the stars being different. SO many people don't even seem to understand that the star field rotates overhead.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I don't remember which one of the two guys who created this film I corresponded with, but whichever one of them it was, said at that time that he thought the changes in the sky could be more noticeable as you go farther north. Well, in a broad sense that is not possible. However, in a narrower sense there is indeed a refraction effect which causes the sun to be seen above the horizon when it is actually not. It is more pronounced in the arctic due to the cold temps and inversion layers, POSSIBLY exacerbated by global warming. Here in this vid they are both discussing the film and were questioned about this "axis tilt" claim. At about 35:00 Mauro addresses it and DOES attribute it to the Novaya Zemlya effect. I don't know the actual number of degrees which the apparent location of the sun can be altered by that refraction, but I'm guessing it's NOT enough to account for the amount of shift seeming to be claimed by the Inuit guys. I am left wondering if the various communities they visited had internet and had been affected by stories about "pole shift", which have been circulating since the mid to late 90s, promoted by one Nancy Lieder.

PS: The film makers opinion is that the Inuit elders cannot be wrong, so this is their way of showing that they were actually "right". I think there is more to it than that. Most people on the internet who are promoting this story flatly reject the Novaya Zemlya explanation and it really has more to do with another story about the sun rising two days early in Greenland. It DOES explain that quite nicely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya_effect

 
Last edited:

Chew

Senior Member.
A pole shift enthusiast showed up on one of my FB friend's timeline and pasted some Chandler wobble reference but he had no clue what the unit of measure stood for. Hilarity ensued.

For those not wanting to do the math: 1 mas (milliarcsecond) from the center of the Earth to the surface comes out to 3 centimeters on the surface.

llo 1.jpg
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Ok, I can see getting MAS wrong - it's one of those oddball units of measure that don't really come up very often, and it's abbreviated in lower case in the chart to add confusion. But to then look it up, twice, and connect it to such absurdly incompatible concepts? One of them isn't even a unit of measure. I clicked like in lieu of a "sad" reaction.


I do find it moderately interesting that the radius of libration seems to have expanded recently, and fairly directly (no spiral out but a straightish shot from a 280 MAS circle to a ~360 MAS circle. Not interesting in a "OMG the poles are shifting and Nibiru is coming" kind of way, but in a, "Huh, guess they'll need to move the ice markers again," kind of way. I wouldn't even go on record as saying it's done that, since for all I know it's just an artifact of the chart's start/end dates.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I do find it moderately interesting that the radius of libration seems to have expanded recently, and fairly directly (no spiral out but a straightish shot from a 280 MAS circle to a ~360 MAS circle. Not interesting in a "OMG the poles are shifting and Nibiru is coming" kind of way, but in a, "Huh, guess they'll need to move the ice markers again," kind of way. I wouldn't even go on record as saying it's done that, since for all I know it's just an artifact of the chart's start/end dates.

The term "libration" is not properly applied to the Chandler Wobble. Libration is an APPARENT motion between two bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Yeah, I had a feeling I used the wrong word there... I sat on that post for a few minutes and just clicked instead of bothering to look it up. The word I was looking for was precession, but that's not the correct term here either.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yeah, I had a feeling I used the wrong word there... I sat on that post for a few minutes and just clicked instead of bothering to look it up. The word I was looking for was precession, but that's not the correct term here either.

3 'Hail Marys' and 2 'Our fathers'.
 

Daven S

New Member
No, but we are only privy to a translation of what they are supposedly saying. The translation captions in the film leave no doubt that they are supposedly saying the sun and stars are LITERALLY in the wrong place in the sky.
They very well could have been interviewed about
The term "libration" is not properly applied to the Chandler Wobble. Libration is an APPARENT motion between two bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Forgive my admitted ignorance concern in this topic... However, If there is an apparent magnetic pole shift towards the northwest I believe, as NASA now claims, would that actually shift the tilt of Earths axis? Or would this just be observed in terms of a magnetic shift? Isnt the magnetic poles geographic location what determines the location of this axis, on which the planet spins? As I believe it's being explained by some commentors that this axis wobbles slowly and varies over the years, can anyone explain the factors determining this wobble? That which I research on this is confusing and somewhat vague and almost contradictory at times??? Just strange as if it's not quite known yet what 2 ascribe the tilt of Earths axis
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
The magnetic pole is not the rotational pole. Earth's magnetic field is incredibly weak, .25 to .65 gauss. Gauss is generally a unit too small to be useful, and Earth's field doesn't even use a full one, so it has no measurable effect on rotation.

There's actually two "magnetic poles" at each end - there's the geomagnetic pole, where compasses point (currently the north geomagnetic pole is near Ellesmere Island, and it moves west about one degree of longitude every ten years and is nearly fixed in latitude) and the north dip pole, where field lines are vertical. This is the one you're most likely referring to, as it moves erratically up to 60 km every year. It's currently near the north rotational pole, and heading out of Canadian territory towards Russia, after spending at least a couple centuries meandering around the islands in northern Canada.
 

Latest posts

Top