Midnight Sun Again

Additional evidence for NASA's deception:

---

 NASA deliberately edits its own "raw" images and fakes data loss.

---

NASA deliberately released low resolution versions of their mars orbiter imaging to encourage public hype about the Cydonia Menasae.

---

NASA browns out the sky in its Rover imagery

---

NASA is faking the colors of the martian sky

---

NASA contrives the results of its mars missions before launch.

---

NASA continues to manually edit "raw" images.

---

Blue Skies Over Gusev Crater

Quote

Do they offer proof that NASA is part of the round earth conspiracy? If they do give me a link to such documentary.

The NASA Hoax documentaries give evidence that NASA is lying to the public. For what underlying reason remains, of course, unknowable.

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503&hl=en

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&hl=en

Neither of those videos provide any evidence that NASA is a part of RE-conspiracy.

It would depend on the particular cruise, wouldn't it?

http://www.journeys.travel/destinations/polar/antarctica/520/

At minimum the duration of cruises is at least days. Are you saying that no one who have been on those cruises have not stayed awake for more than 12 hours and not noticed that sun has gone down.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 01:49:07 AM

Additional evidence for NASA's deception:

---

 NASA deliberately edits its own "raw" images and fakes data loss.

---

...

Um, you've been told before Tom, but all those links support the fact that NASA sent a probe to Mars.

Er.... oops?

He is simply showing NASA is untrustworthy. Of course those articles don't show the extent. Are you that big of an idiot?

Goldstein, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLM!

Quote

Then there are four possible scenarios:
1. You choose to keep the evidence to yourself.
2. You are lying and have no evidence.
3. You are delusional and believe you have evidence, which is false, and believe just haven't presented it.
4. You are delusional and believe you have shown us evidence, which is false.

I've already presented my evidence for a FE on this forum.

Just out of curiosity what kind of telescope did you use?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 01:11:07 AM

Quote

Then there are four possible scenarios:
1. You choose to keep the evidence to yourself.
2. You are lying and have no evidence.
3. You are delusional and believe you have evidence, which is false, and believe just haven't presented it.
4. You are delusional and believe you have shown us evidence, which is false.

I've already presented my evidence for a FE on this forum.

Just out of curiosity what kind of telescope did you use?

He still didn't answer to the point that his margin of error would have been over 8000 feet.

Tom Bishop,  what do you require as evidence of sunlight lasting more than 24 hours in the Antarctic?  What would you accept?

Neither of those videos provide any evidence that NASA is a part of RE-conspiracy.

It's evidence that NASA isn't sending rocket ships to space or to the moon.

At minimum the duration of cruises is at least days. Are you saying that no one who have been on those cruises have not stayed awake for more than 12 hours and not noticed that sun has gone down.

Do you have any first hand accounts from people who went on those cruises, or should I just take a leap of faith and assume that they saw exactly what your model needs them to see?

Tom Bishop,  what do you require as evidence of sunlight lasting more than 24 hours in the Antarctic?  What would you accept?

How about evidence from a non-government source?

Quote

Tom Bishop,  what do you require as evidence of sunlight lasting more than 24 hours in the Antarctic?  What would you accept?

How about evidence from a non-government source?

Would a description of 24 hour daylight, or the sun not setting for more than 24 hours, from a Pre Nasa, non US explorer's book on his expedition to the south pole be good evidence for you?

If so, I will research one for you.

Also, do you agree reasonably that evidence for Midnight sun in Antarctica cannot be explained by FE?

Would a description of 24 hour daylight, or the sun not setting for more than 24 hours, from a Pre Nasa, non US explorer's book on his expedition to the south pole be good evidence for you?

Sure, go find some evidence and get back to us.

Also, do you agree reasonably that evidence for Midnight sun in Antarctica cannot be explained by FE?

Some models of the FE have Antarctic existing as a continent and the sun making a figure 8 pattern across the earth over the year. The midnight sun in Antarctica is possible in this model.

 http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Quote

Would a description of 24 hour daylight, or the sun not setting for more than 24 hours, from a Pre Nasa, non US explorer's book on his expedition to the south pole be good evidence for you?

Sure, go find some evidence and get back to us.

From Roald Amundsen book:  The South Pole; an account of the Norwegian antarctic expedition in the 'Fram', 1910 to 1912

Chapter XII - Paragraph 5

December 7 began like the 6th, with absolutely thick weather, but, as they say, you never know what the day is like before sunset. Possibly I might have chosen a better expression than this last ? one more in agreement with the natural conditions ? but I will let it stand. Though for several weeks now the sun had not set, my readers will not be so critical as to reproach me with inaccuracy. With a light wind from the north-east, we now went southward at a good speed over the perfectly level plain, with excellent going. The uphill work had taken it out of our dogs, though not to any serious extent.

Quote

Also, do you agree reasonably that evidence for Midnight sun in Antarctica cannot be explained by FE?

Some models of the FE have Antarctic existing as a continent and the sun making a figure 8 pattern across the earth over the year. The midnight sun in Antarctica is possible in this model.

 http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Would that explain no sunset for several weeks as Amundsen describes?

Would that explain no sunset for several weeks as Amundsen describes?

Yep. For six months out of the year the sun is rotating around Antarctica in that model.

Some models of the FE have Antarctic existing as a continent and the sun making a figure 8 pattern across the earth over the year. The midnight sun in Antarctica is possible in this model.

 http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

That model is ridiculous. East-west circumnavigation doesn't make remote sense, and my compasses must be pointing west judging by the shape and position of the continents.

That model is ridiculous. East-west circumnavigation doesn't make remote sense, and my compasses must be pointing west judging by the shape and position of the continents.

East-West Circumnavigation is just traveling in relation to the North Pole.

Quote

That model is ridiculous. East-west circumnavigation doesn't make remote sense, and my compasses must be pointing west judging by the shape and position of the continents.

East-West Circumnavigation is just traveling in relation to the North Pole.

So the south pole of my compass would be pointing east.

Quote

That model is ridiculous. East-west circumnavigation doesn't make remote sense, and my compasses must be pointing west judging by the shape and position of the continents.

East-West Circumnavigation is just traveling in relation to the North Pole.

Tom, is that sufficient evidence I have given you for perpetual sunlight in Antarctica?

Here is another quote from the same chapter, they were using the suns apparent altitude above the horizon for their readings:

Observations were now taken every hour through the whole twenty-four. It was very strange to turn in at 6 p.m., and then on turning out again at midnight to find the sun apparently still at the same altitude, and then once more at 6 a.m. to see it still no higher. The altitude had changed, of course, but so slightly that it was imperceptible with the naked eye. To us it appeared as though the sun made the circuit of the heavens at exactly the same altitude. The times of day that I have given here are calculated according to the meridian of Framheim; we continued to reckon our time from this. The observations soon told us that we were not on the absolute Pole, but as close to it as we could hope to get with our instruments. The observations, which have been submitted to Mr. Anton Alexander, will be published, and the result given later in this book.

So the south pole of my compass would be pointing east.

The compass just aligns with the magnetic field lines.

"East" is just a direction which is in relation to the point of Magnetic North. East is always at a 90 degree angle to North, so traveling Eastwards just takes one in a big circle around the North Pole.

Tom, is that sufficient evidence I have given you for perpetual sunlight in Antarctica?

Nope. You also have to prove that his journal entries weren't modified after the fact, and that the government was not involved with the digitization, translation, publishing of his journal entries.

And how would one prove that?  There is no reason to think that they were modified.  They would have to burn every copy every printed.

The web edition was published by eBooks@adelaide.  Which is the University of adelaide, in Australia.

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

So you agree now that the Antarctic midnight sun exists then?  If you want, I could find other books by other explorers, but this is getting ridiculous, the evidence is there.

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

No, the other model cannot be correct, or my compass would be pointing east instead of north, distances would be even more skewed, and long-distance travel would have massive direction adjustments and distance differences. Also, your sun and heavens model (which already fails) would make even less sense.

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

Which FE model allows for the midnight sun?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 08:29:10 AM

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

Which FE model allows for the midnight sun?

He's talking about this joke: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 08, 2008, 10:11:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 08:29:10 AM

If the Antarctic Midnight Sun truly exists, then all it really does is tell us which FE model is the correct model.

Which FE model allows for the midnight sun?

He's talking about this joke: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

I do not see how the sun would reach anywhere near the arctic circle if it was on the opposite edge of Antarctica.  Also, timezones do not work, since the pacific is divided on either side of the globe, and from that suns path only half of that ocean could be lit up at one time.  This cannot work since the pacific in that map is stretched around the top part of the map.

I do not see how this map could exist with the midnight sun in Antarctica.  Which has been sufficiently proven.

In addition, Roald Amundsen landed on Antarctica at the Ross shelf (same as Ross).  Which on the flat earth map shown is the bottom side of Antarctica.  They would have had to sail around the continent to land there, when in reality it is directly south from New Zealand, and about 2500 miles (just eying the scale)

Some more verifications:

Appendix IV
The Astronomical Observations at the Pole

Note by Professor H. Geelmuyden

Christiania,

September 16, 1912.

When requested this summer to receive the astronomical observations from Roald Amundsen?s South Pole Expedition, for the purpose of working them out, I at once put myself in communication with Mr. A. Alexander (a mathematical master) to get him to undertake this work, while indicating the manner in which the materials could be best dealt with. As Mr. Alexander had in a very efficient manner participated in the working out of the observations from Nansen?s Fram Expedition, and since then had calculated the astronomical observations from Amundsen?s Gj?a Expedition, and from Captain Isachsen?s expeditions to Spitzbergen, I knew by experience that he was not only a reliable and painstaking calculator, but that he also has so full an insight into the theoretical basis, that he is capable of working without being bound down by instructions.

(Signed) H. Geelmuyden,

Professor of Astronomy,

The Observatory of the University,

Christiania.

Mr. Alexander?s Report.

Captain Roald Amundsen,

At your request I shall here give briefly the result of my examination of the observations from your South Pole Expedition. My calculations are based on the longitude for Framheim given to me by Lieutenant Prestrud, 163? 37? W. of Greenwich. He describes this longitude as provisional, but only to such an extent that the final result cannot differ appreciably from it. My own results may also be somewhat modified on a final treatment of the material. But these modifications, again, will only be immaterial, and, in any case, will not affect the result of the investigations given below as to the position of the two Polar stations.

At the first Polar station, on December 15, 1911, eighteen altitudes of the sun were taken in all with each of the expedition?s sextants. The latitude calculated from these altitudes is, on an average of both sextants, very near 89? 54?, with a mean error of +-2?. The longitude calculated from the altitudes is about 7t (105?) E.; but, as might be expected in this high latitude, the aberrations are very considerable. We may, however, assume with great certainty that this station lies between lat. 89? 52? and 89? 56? S., and between long. 90? and 120? E.

The variation of the compass at the first Polar station was determined by a series of bearings of the sun. This gives us the absolute direction of the last day?s line of route. The length of this line was measured as five and a half geographical miles. With the help of this we are able to construct for Polheim a field of the same form and extent as that within which the first Polar station must lie.

At Polheim, during a period of twenty-four hours (December 16 ? 17), observations were taken every hour with one of the sextants. The observations show an upper culmination altitude of 28? 19.2?, and a resulting lower culmination altitude of 23? 174?. These combining the above two altitudes, an equal error on the same side in each will have no influence on the result. The combination gives a latitude of 89? 58.6?. That this result must be nearly correct is confirmed by the considerable displacement of the periods of culmination which is indicated by the series of observations, and which in the immediate neighbourhood of the Pole is caused by the change in the sun?s declination. On the day of the observations this displacement amounted to thirty minutes in 89? 57?, forty-six minutes in 89? 58?, and over an hour and a half in 89? 59?. The upper culmination occurred so much too late, and the lower culmination so much too early. The interval between these two periods was thus diminished by double the amount of the displacements given. Now the series of observations shows that the interval between the upper and the lower culmination amounted at the most to eleven hours; the displacement of the periods of culmination was thus at least half an hour. It results that Polheim must lie south of 89? 57?, while at the same time we may assume that it cannot lie south of 89? 59?. The moments of culmination could, of course, only be determined very approximately, and in the same way the observations as a whole are unserviceable for the determination of longitude. It may, however, be stated with some certainty that the longitude must be between 30? and 75? E. The latitude, as already mentioned, is between 89? 57? and 89? 59?, and the probable position of Polheim may be given roughly as lat. 89? 58.5? S., and long. 60? E.

On the accompanying sketch-chart the letters abcd indicate the field within which the first Polar station must lie; ABCD is the field which is thereby assigned to Polheim; EFGH the field within which Polheim must lie according to the observations taken on the spot itself; P the probable position of Polheim, and L the resulting position of the first Polar station. The position thus assigned to the latter agrees as well as could be expected with the average result of the observations of December 15. According to this, Polheim would be assumed to lie one and a half geographical miles, or barely three kilometres, from the South Pole, and certainly not so much as six kilometres from it.

From your verbal statement I learn that Helmer Hanssen and Bjaaland walked four geographical miles from Polheim in the direction taken to be south on the basis of the observations. On the chart the letters efgh give the field within which the termination of their line of route must lie. It will be seen from this that they passed the South Pole at a distance which, on the one hand, can hardly have been so great as two and a half kilometres, and on the other, hardly so great as two kilometres; that, if the assumed position of Polheim be correct, they passed the actual Pole at a distance of between 400 and 600 metres; and that it is very probable that they passed the actual Pole at a distance of a few hundred metres, perhaps even less.

I am, etc.,

(Signed) Anton Alexander.

Christiania,

September 22, 1912.

An observation on their trip back:

At one o?clock on the following morning we were out again. The sight that met our eyes that morning, when we came out of the tent, was one of those that will always live in our memories. The tent stood in the narrow gap between Fridtjof Nansen and Ole Engelstad. The sun, which now stood in the south, was completely hidden by the latter mountain, and our camp was thus in the deepest shadow; but right against us on the other side the Nansen mountain raised its splendid ice-clad summit high towards heaven, gleaming and sparkling in the rays of the midnight sun. The shining white passed gradually, very gradually, into pale blue, then deeper and deeper blue, until the shadow swallowed it up. But down below, right on the Heiberg Glacier, its ice-covered side was exposed ? dark and solemn the mountain mass stood out. Mount Engelstad lay in shadow, but on its summit rested a beautiful light little cirrus cloud, red with an edge of gold. Down over its side the blocks of ice lay scattered pell-mell. And farther down on the east rose Don Pedro Christophersen, partly in shadow, partly gleaming in the sun ? a marvellously beautiful sight. And all was so still; one almost feared to disturb the incomparable splendour of the scene.

Yes, actually they have the original binding of the book online at amazon.  It is confirmed.  The current Flat earth models cannot stand to this fact.

I have not read this whole thread but has anyone pointed out that when the midnight sun is happening in the southern hemisphere then you have midday darkness at the same latitude in the northern hemisphere?   Of course if anyone actually professes to have seen the southern midnight sun and actually knew what date it was, then he must be part of the conspiracy also.