PDA

View Full Version : Do conspiricy people always assume that bright stars are nibiru?



Tenshu
2011-Feb-22, 05:40 PM
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=14181

According to this person people in New Zealand are seeing a "yellow star" as he/she puts it and they think it's Nibiru, I'm inclined to think it's something else but why do people jump on bright stars and claim thier Nibiru?

Swift
2011-Feb-22, 05:50 PM
Tenshu, did you read the answer David Morrison posted there?

These are two of the weirdest and saddest notes sent to Ask an Astrobiologist. There is no way to answer other than to reply that none of these "facts" is correct. I am afraid these people have lost contact with reality.
Why even think about such complete nonsense?

As far as an answer to the question in your title, I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is no. "The Conspiracy People" generally don't even agree with each other, so I doubt there is universal agreement among them on any topic.

Tenshu
2011-Feb-22, 06:59 PM
I did read it, but when I saw "New Zealand" mentioned I got into question mode since that's apparently the best place to spot "Nibiru" if it exists.

Just asking a question to check on something more than panicing about it is what i was doing here.

caveman1917
2011-Feb-22, 07:43 PM
I did read it, but when I saw "New Zealand" mentioned I got into question mode since that's apparently the best place to spot "Nibiru" if it exists.

Why would that be the best place to spot "Nibiru"? The earth revolves completely around its axis once every day. So the "optimal" place to spot some astronomical object just goes around the globe during the day. Like the sun, one time it's overhead in your location, but when it's night at your place, it's noon at some other place, and so on.

Unless Niburu races through space at dazzling speed to always remain straight above New Zealand. Now that would be scary :) (at least to those in new zealand)

Bobbar
2011-Feb-22, 08:00 PM
Do conspiricy people always assume that bright stars are nibiru?

They assume a lot of things. Then they even go on to assume that anyone trying to explain to them why their assumptions are wrong must be a disinformation agent working for the government. Most of the time their thinking is so flawed that any attempt to have a rational discussion just ends up going around and around in teeny tiny circles.

I agree with David, they have lost contact with reality, and are instead fabricating their own.

BTW, I wonder what is being mistaken for a non-existent planet-star-spaceship-2012 doom bringer thing this time around?

Garrison
2011-Feb-22, 08:38 PM
Why would that be the best place to spot "Nibiru"? The earth revolves completely around its axis once every day. So the "optimal" place to spot some astronomical object just goes around the globe during the day. Like the sun, one time it's overhead in your location, but when it's night at your place, it's noon at some other place, and so on.

Unless Niburu races through space at dazzling speed to always remain straight above New Zealand. Now that would be scary :) (at least to those in new zealand)

Yeah I think New Zealand's got more to worry about right now than Niburu, though I suspect the true believers will work the quake into their lunacy.

LaurelHS
2011-Feb-22, 08:47 PM
Yeah I think New Zealand's got more to worry about right now than Niburu, though I suspect the true believers will work the quake into their lunacy.
They're doing that, all right. Some people on Yahoo Answers have already asked if the earthquake in NZ is a sign of the 2012 doomsday. I told them that the world didn't end when NZ suffered an 8.2 earthquake in 1855; of course I doubt they paid any attention.

Swift
2011-Feb-22, 08:56 PM
I was just reading Michael Shermer's column in the November 2010 Scientific American (it is slowly circulating at work) and there is a great quote from Christopher Hitchens that applies to so much of this stuff. I almost think we should sticky it:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

Michael Shermer says the quote is worthy of elevation to a dictum.

kleindoofy
2011-Feb-22, 09:56 PM
... why do people jump on bright stars and claim thier Nibiru?
Why do people hear the wind and claim it's the ghost of their late grandmother?

Why do people see a data error in a NASA image and claim it's an alien spaceship?

Rinse, repeat ...

Bozola
2011-Feb-22, 11:43 PM
Veni, vidi, credidi.

Jim
2011-Feb-23, 12:25 AM
Why would that be the best place to spot "Nibiru"? The earth revolves completely around its axis once every day. So the "optimal" place to spot some astronomical object just goes around the globe during the day. ...

I hate to be a wet blanket, but... When was the last time you saw the Southern Cross from your back yard?

Jens
2011-Feb-23, 04:22 AM
I hate to be a wet blanket, but... When was the last time you saw the Southern Cross from your back yard?

I think the problem is that Tenshu's post wasn't clear on this, and caveman1917 didn't understand. What Tenshu meant to say is not that it would always be over New Zealand, but that it would be viewed from the southern hemisphere, hence New Zealand and other such places where you have to wear magnetic shoes to ensure not falling off the earth.

Jens
2011-Feb-23, 04:25 AM
I'm inclined to think it's something else

You're "inclined" to think it's something else? Come on, it is something else. I think people have said this over and over, but if there were a major body coming into the solar system that was bright enough that we saw it as a bright star, then we would definitely know about it.

caveman1917
2011-Feb-23, 04:50 AM
I hate to be a wet blanket, but... When was the last time you saw the Southern Cross from your back yard?


I think the problem is that Tenshu's post wasn't clear on this, and caveman1917 didn't understand. What Tenshu meant to say is not that it would always be over New Zealand, but that it would be viewed from the southern hemisphere, hence New Zealand and other such places where you have to wear magnetic shoes to ensure not falling off the earth.

What Jens said. I had (as usual) interpreted the statement way too strictly, thinking along the lines of "what's wrong with south america?".

Tenshu
2011-Feb-23, 05:37 AM
You're "inclined" to think it's something else? Come on, it is something else. I think people have said this over and over, but if there were a major body coming into the solar system that was bright enough that we saw it as a bright star, then we would definitely know about it.

I was just "questioning" the subject since I know that most "nibiru" conspiricy's rely on places in the southern hemisphere like New Zealand.

I agree that it is something else Jens, you, Swift and the others are right.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-23, 06:14 AM
I was just "questioning" the subject since I know that most "nibiru" conspiricy's rely on places in the southern hemisphere like New Zealand.

Right, and the proponents often seem to think that a world or dwarf star could be seen from some location in the Southern hemisphere (like some spot in New Zealand) yet somehow escape the notice of the rest of the Southern hemisphere. Of course, that makes no sense, but that doesn't stop the claims.

vonmazur
2011-Feb-23, 07:18 AM
Guys: The Movie; "When Worlds Collide", started this entire Southern Hemisphere idea. I doubt if the CT true believers even are aware of this in their rantings...All it took was Nancy L. to start it up again, and the collective sub-conscious takes over from there..

Dale

Skyfire
2011-Feb-23, 10:53 AM
........... hence New Zealand and other such places where you have to wear magnetic shoes to ensure not falling off the earth.

Wow! You can learn so much here! I just KNEW there was something I needed to add to my packing list for when I go to Australia and New Zealand ..... just couldn't think what it was .....




:)

A.DIM
2011-Feb-23, 02:06 PM
Guys: The Movie; "When Worlds Collide", started this entire Southern Hemisphere idea.

That's not accurate, is it?
Sitchin claimed Nibiru approaches from below the ecliptic, some 30deg, in the direction of Saggitarius.

R.A.F.
2011-Feb-23, 03:49 PM
That's not accurate, is it?
Sitchin claimed...

You are correct...Sitchin's claims are not evidenced to be accurate. :)

JeffD1
2011-Feb-23, 04:44 PM
That's not accurate, is it?
Sitchin claimed Nibiru approaches from below the ecliptic, some 30deg, in the direction of Saggitarius.

I admit I have read only a short piece about Stichin and that was 30 years ago in,IIRC, Reader's Digest.

Didn't Carl Sagan (or was it Ben Bova??) say that at a social gathering he was speaking with an anthropologist and said of Stichin that he was impressed with the anthropology but that the astronomy was pure bunk, to which the anthropologist replied that he had found the astronomy of Stichin to be interesting but that his anthropology was bunk(words to this effect anyway)?

If Nibiru orbits the Sun then if it approachs from 30deg below the ecliptic then as it rounds the Sun does it not have to be at some point 30 deg above the ecliptic and therefore visible from the northern hemisphere of Earth?

Gillianren
2011-Feb-23, 05:44 PM
Didn't Carl Sagan (or was it Ben Bova??) say that at a social gathering he was speaking with an anthropologist and said of Stichin that he was impressed with the anthropology but that the astronomy was pure bunk, to which the anthropologist replied that he had found the astronomy of Stichin to be interesting but that his anthropology was bunk(words to this effect anyway)?

I believe that was Velikovsky, but the same concept applies.

And the "critical reaction" section about it on Wikipedia includes why Phil thinks it's bogus!

Jim
2011-Feb-23, 07:49 PM
... but that it would be viewed from the southern hemisphere, hence New Zealand and other such places where you have to wear magnetic shoes to ensure not falling off the earth.

_______________

As above, so below

I just wanted to catch the ironic coincidence of your reply and your signature.

Well, to me anyway.

vonmazur
2011-Feb-24, 01:10 AM
That's not accurate, is it?
Sitchin claimed Nibiru approaches from below the ecliptic, some 30deg, in the direction of Saggitarius.

Remember the protagonist had to fly to South Africa to get the first pictures?? I think this started the whole idea, or the scriptwriters were reading Velikovsky!:)

Dale

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-24, 01:20 AM
Remember the protagonist had to fly to South Africa to get the first pictures?? I think this started the whole idea, or the scriptwriters were reading Velikovsky!:)

Dale

Interesting, I don't remember that. I wonder if that detail came from the original story? It was originally published in 1933, predating Velikovsky's and Sitchin's claims.

Spoons
2011-Feb-24, 01:36 AM
"The Conspiracy People" generally don't even agree with each other, so I doubt there is universal agreement among them on any topic.

Apart from their preferred hat-making material.

Nowhere Man
2011-Feb-24, 02:53 AM
Re. When Worlds Collide: The observations and photos were made by a South African observatory, and dispatched from there via confidential courier (the action hero) to the head scientist hero in New York.

How many southern-hemisphere observatories existed in 1930?

Fred

Weltraum
2011-Feb-24, 04:07 AM
Tenshu, did you read the answer David Morrison posted there?

Why even think about such complete nonsense?

As far as an answer to the question in your title, I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is no. "The Conspiracy People" generally don't even agree with each other, so I doubt there is universal agreement among them on any topic.

To reply in the spirit of Dawkins, if Nibiru belief were to become a religion, we wouldn't be able to call their beliefs nonsense on this forum anymore :D And would have a harder time of it in general.

Swift
2011-Feb-24, 04:12 AM
To reply in the spirit of Dawkins, if Nibiru belief were to become a religion, we wouldn't be able to call their beliefs nonsense on this forum anymore :D And would have a harder time of it in general.
Weltraum,

That is the second post in the last couple of hours in CT that you have made that pushed the limits of our no politics / no religion rules (this is the first one (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/112994-Must-be-a-REALLY-slow-news-day!?p=1855553#post1855553)). It is obvious, particular from the first post, that you know better. Even if you mean them as jokes, please stop it.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-24, 04:18 AM
Weltraum,

That is the second post in the last couple of hours in CT that you have made that pushed the limits of our no politics / no religion rules (this is the first one (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/112994-Must-be-a-REALLY-slow-news-day!?p=1855553#post1855553)). It is obvious, particular from the first post, that you know better. Even if you mean them as jokes, please stop it.

Well, I admit that I was doing it to poke at the rules regarding religion. I agree with Dawkins when he criticises their protected status. But I'll leave that stuff alone if the rules can't be relaxed enough to discuss it even this much. I would have thought that the rules meant that we simply can't criticise this or that religion in particular, vs discussing the discussion of religion here as a topic in itself.

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-24, 04:36 AM
Well, I admit that I was doing it to poke at the rules regarding religion.

Discussing the rules or moderator warnings in-thread drags those threads off topic and is not allowed. Your post - #30 this thread - should not have been made. Use PM's or a report to bring something off-topic to the attention of the moderators. (Poking the rules is, well, against the rules; and rule 12 is pretty clear.)

ngc3314
2011-Feb-24, 02:12 PM
Re. When Worlds Collide: The observations and photos were made by a South African observatory, and dispatched from there via confidential courier (the action hero) to the head scientist hero in New York.

How many southern-hemisphere observatories existed in 1930?


Mt. Stromlo near Canberra was still mostly solar, but the Great Melbourne Telescope (50" = 1.3m aperture) had been in service since 1869 at its first Australian site.

Cordoba Observatory in Argentina was founded in 1871, but their 2-meter (or so) telescope was installed only in 1939. Harvard operated a 24" telescope in Peru from 1891-1927. A Chilean national observatory was active from Santiago from the mid-1800s but I'm having trouble telling what equipment they had when.

A pair of 18/24-inch refractors operated in Cape Town from 1901 on.

Bosscha in Indonesia (6 deg south) started operation in 1928 with 60-cm refractors at least soon thereafter.

Sites at low northern latitudes can reach almost all the southern sky. There was a 15-inch telescope equipped for spectroscopy at Tacubaya (Mexico City) by 1909, and they also had a Carte du Ciel astrographic camera.

A.DIM
2011-Feb-24, 02:38 PM
I admit I have read only a short piece about Stichin and that was 30 years ago in,IIRC, Reader's Digest.

Well, I admit I've read Sitchin's The Earth Chronicles and a few of the companion volumes, along with countless texts and source materials, and while I find the idea of ancient astronauts entirely plausible, several discoveries would be needed for me to believe he's correct; a perturber body in the outer system first and foremost.


Didn't Carl Sagan (or was it Ben Bova??) say that at a social gathering he was speaking with an anthropologist and said of Stichin that he was impressed with the anthropology but that the astronomy was pure bunk, to which the anthropologist replied that he had found the astronomy of Stichin to be interesting but that his anthropology was bunk(words to this effect anyway)?

Yeah, I believe Gillianren is correct but this reminds me of something in similar spirit: Fossils are dated by asking a geologist the age of the rocks in which they are found, while the geologist dates the rock by asking a paleontologist the age of the fossils!


If Nibiru orbits the Sun then if it approachs from 30deg below the ecliptic then as it rounds the Sun does it not have to be at some point 30 deg above the ecliptic and therefore visible from the northern hemisphere of Earth?

Yes, it would stand to reason, albeit the large majority of time is spent below the ecliptic.
Something like this...

A.DIM
2011-Feb-24, 02:41 PM
Remember the protagonist had to fly to South Africa to get the first pictures?? I think this started the whole idea, or the scriptwriters were reading Velikovsky!:)

Dale

Ah, I see what you mean.
I don't think Velikovsky ever described Nibiru though, did he?

Gillianren
2011-Feb-24, 04:31 PM
Yeah, I believe Gillianren is correct but this reminds me of something in similar spirit: Fossils are dated by asking a geologist the age of the rocks in which they are found, while the geologist dates the rock by asking a paleontologist the age of the fossils!

And if that were true and not creationist rhetoric . . . . However, it is true that both the science and the history of every ancient astronauts "theory" I've encountered are dreadful.

captain swoop
2011-Feb-24, 05:46 PM
Yeah, I believe Gillianren is correct but this reminds me of something in similar spirit: Fossils are dated by asking a geologist the age of the rocks in which they are found, while the geologist dates the rock by asking a paleontologist the age of the fossils!

Your source for this claim is where?

A.DIM
2011-Feb-24, 07:17 PM
Your source for this claim is where?

Clive Trotman's The Feathered Onion, Chapter 3 "Dating The Ancestors."

But you shouldn't take me so seriously... I made that remark tongue in cheek.

Swift
2011-Feb-24, 08:25 PM
But you shouldn't take me so seriously... I made that remark tongue in cheek.
Then it would be most helpful to use one of these: :) or these: :p or give us some clue that it is a joke. ATM and CT are poor places for non-obvious jokes.

kamaz
2011-Feb-24, 08:59 PM
If Nibiru orbits the Sun then if it approachs from 30deg below the ecliptic then as it rounds the Sun does it not have to be at some point 30 deg above the ecliptic and therefore visible from the northern hemisphere of Earth?

Only after it crosses the ecliptic and swings around the Sun, at which point (according to the believers) we are all toast. This seems to be the idea (south is up): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vwdAf3BQZt8/SV0c86LLVXI/AAAAAAAABM8/LfpXnwdaoMk/s320/andy_loyd_nibiru_path.jpg

kamaz
2011-Feb-24, 09:05 PM
How many southern-hemisphere observatories existed in 1930?


Reality check: if the object was indeed observed in 1930, shouldn't it be caught by now independently by DSS or some asteroid survey?

kamaz
2011-Feb-24, 09:16 PM
Right, and the proponents often seem to think that a world or dwarf star could be seen from some location in the Southern hemisphere (like some spot in New Zealand) yet somehow escape the notice of the rest of the Southern hemisphere. Of course, that makes no sense, but that doesn't stop the claims.

The main problem is that most people have no clue about the sky. You could probably point to Sirius or Mintaka and say "That's Nibiru" and they would not know better. Conversely, they have no idea that visible objects are primarily determined by observer's latitude. I remember explaining this very fact to people on several different occasions.

Swift
2011-Feb-24, 09:42 PM
The main problem is that most people have no clue about the sky. You could probably point to Sirius or Mintaka and say "That's Nibiru" and they would not know better.
Yes, I think that is a huge part of it. I think that also factors into a lot of UFOs.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-25, 12:02 AM
Only after it crosses the ecliptic and swings around the Sun, at which point (according to the believers) we are all toast. This seems to be the idea (south is up): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vwdAf3BQZt8/SV0c86LLVXI/AAAAAAAABM8/LfpXnwdaoMk/s320/andy_loyd_nibiru_path.jpg

What's pictured there would certainly be VERY visible to the naked eye, even at the distance of Uranus or Neptune, I should think! It would be plainly visible and real, but somehow, this is supposed to be controversial?

In my experience, Nibiru fans will claim that astronomers know of about Nibiru but are keeping quiet. That, I suppose, is really the only avenue open to them at this point if they wish to maintain that faith.

Nowhere Man
2011-Feb-25, 12:53 AM
Reality check: if the object was indeed observed in 1930, shouldn't it be caught by now independently by DSS or some asteroid survey?

Reality check: The question was in regards to When Worlds Collide, which is fiction. In the course of the story, the intruding objects wreak havoc within a year IIRC.

My thought was, how many observatories existed in 1930 that were capable of deep observing of the southern sky, thus answering the narrative need of late discovery of something sneaking up on us from down under?

Thus endeth this subthread, which has little relation to the OP.

Fred

chrlzs
2011-Feb-25, 08:16 AM
It's worth noting that due to the earth's 23 tilt, and its motion around the Sun, people who are in low to mid latitudes (er, especially those at 23 or less..!) do in fact get to see most of the cosmos, both north and south. The 'invisible' part starts as you live at 24 or more and is just a slender 'cone' of invisibility that widens as the latitude increases. (Yes, I'm ignoring local terrain issues... call me simplistic!)

Oh, and the concept that us Southerners are unable to see stuff, and do not have telescopes.. how insulting!!

We just get paid not to say anything

{oops.. did I just think out loud..?) :D

Space Chimp
2011-Feb-25, 01:21 PM
In my experience, Nibiru fans will claim that astronomers know of about Nibiru but are keeping quiet. That, I suppose, is really the only avenue open to them at this point if they wish to maintain that faith.

I get the impression that Nibiru fans, and the public in general are blissfully unaware of how much observing power is in the hands of the host of dedicated amateur or backyard astronomers that work every night. They are ones that usually first discover new comets and asteroids and would never remain silent or could be silenced on spotting an 'anomaly' such as this. I think they naively assume that you need a colossal government funded observatory or orbital telescope to see anything deep in space. In their warped by Niburu mindset, between those devices and Google Sky, the government controls the heavens above.

I still recall the surprise on a teenage friend's face when he first peeked through my old department store refractor. "Geez, I didn't know you could see the rings on Saturn with one of these toys. I didn't even know you could see Saturn period."

A.DIM
2011-Feb-25, 02:05 PM
Then it would be most helpful to use one of these: :) or these: :p or give us some clue that it is a joke. ATM and CT are poor places for non-obvious jokes.

No doubt, and my mistake; I guess not everyone finds humor in the astronomer / anthropologist exchange.

cjameshuff
2011-Feb-25, 02:14 PM
It's worth noting that due to the earth's 23 tilt, and its motion around the Sun, people who are in low to mid latitudes (er, especially those at 23 or less..!) do in fact get to see most of the cosmos, both north and south. The 'invisible' part starts as you live at 24 or more and is just a slender 'cone' of invisibility that widens as the latitude increases. (Yes, I'm ignoring local terrain issues... call me simplistic!)

The tilt and motion around the sun don't reveal any additional sky...Earth's poles point at the same parts of the sky year round (aside from long-term variations that take place over many years). Ignoring terrain and atmosphere, the distance from the equator you can travel before part of the sky becomes occluded depends entirely on the height of your viewpoint above the ground.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-25, 04:57 PM
I still recall the surprise on a teenage friend's face when he first peeked through my old department store refractor. "Geez, I didn't know you could see the rings on Saturn with one of these toys. I didn't even know you could see Saturn period."

How does he think Saturn was first seen? It was before the invention of telescopes.


No doubt, and my mistake; I guess not everyone finds humor in the astronomer / anthropologist exchange.

I find humour in the implications. We are, as everyone knows, a lot more willing to find that of which we know nothing more believable than things in our own field. We're also pretty willing to just believe it instead of research it for ourselves, and all the evidence in the world doesn't matter to the True Believer.

Jim
2011-Feb-25, 05:54 PM
No doubt, and my mistake; I guess not everyone finds humor in the astronomer / anthropologist exchange.

I think it works better if they walk into a bar.

Space Chimp
2011-Feb-25, 07:51 PM
How does he think Saturn was first seen? It was before the invention of telescopes.

He assumed that Saturn was found the same way that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were--by telescope. This was back in the late 1970s, but sad as it may seem I recall most friends and relatives I invited to look through the 'scope back then didn't realize most of the planets were naked eye objects.

"How did you find it in the first place?...it's hanging right there in the sky" was a common refrain.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-26, 01:16 AM
Wow. That's kind of sad.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-26, 01:35 AM
Wow. That's kind of sad.

Well, you know... Who has time for stargazing or astronomy with all of our little distractions these days?

JonClarke
2011-Feb-26, 01:37 AM
Yeah, I believe Gillianren is correct but this reminds me of something in similar spirit: Fossils are dated by asking a geologist the age of the rocks in which they are found, while the geologist dates the rock by asking a paleontologist the age of the fossils!

It is wrong, not a joke, and tries to make a completely different point to the Sagan quote that inspired it.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Feb-26, 01:55 AM
I think it works better if they walk into a bar.
And it's interesting and depressing how much more people are willing to believe in something told as a dark secret, in a bar, by someone they've never met before, than they are willing to believe experts on the subject.


ETA yes I do know the type of jokes Jim referred to, I just picked on the bar aspect for the segue.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-26, 02:18 AM
I believe that was Velikovsky, but the same concept applies.

And the "critical reaction" section about it on Wikipedia includes why Phil thinks it's bogus!

You do have a good memory. Yes I believe you are correct in that it was Velikovsky now that you mention it.

As for the veracity of the quote, interesting but I would still think its a good estimation of both aspects of Nibiru and similar woo.

Given that it is not obvious when someone is joking here, and since that also extends to understanding who is and isn't a woo-follower, I feel I should state that I am most certainly not an adhereant to any conspiracy theories. I prefer my science mainstream.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-26, 02:23 AM
No doubt, and my mistake; I guess not everyone finds humor in the astronomer / anthropologist exchange.

I have read a few other posts by you and was a little taken aback by that. Smilies would have helped convey the sarcasm, a method of humourous comment that I appreciate.:clap:

kleindoofy
2011-Feb-26, 02:26 AM
And it's interesting and depressing how much more people are willing to believe in something told as a dark secret, in a bar, by someone they've never met before, than they are willing to believe experts on the subject.
The same applies to the internet. People will adopt truths presented by someone on the net, although they have absolutely no idea who that person really is. All the person has to do is whine and complain about enough authorities and claim to be privy to inside information, while information from real experts is dismissed as conspirital:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8027/internetexpert.jpg

JonClarke
2011-Feb-26, 06:35 AM
The same applies to the internet. People will adopt truths presented by someone on the net, although they have absolutely no idea who that person really is. All the person has to do is whine and complain about enough authorities and claim to be privy to inside information, while information from real experts is dismissed as conspirital:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8027/internetexpert.jpg

Brilliant!

vonmazur
2011-Feb-26, 06:57 AM
Sorry! Not enough 'acne vulgaris' to qualify as an "Expert" !!

Dale

JonClarke
2011-Feb-26, 07:34 AM
Photoshopped, obviously.

Spoons
2011-Feb-26, 11:10 AM
The same applies to the internet. People will adopt truths presented by someone on the net, although they have absolutely no idea who that person really is. All the person has to do is whine and complain about enough authorities and claim to be privy to inside information, while information from real experts is dismissed as conspirital:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8027/internetexpert.jpg

What you say works, but the pic is obviousl a kid playing WoW. His left hand is up on the numbers ready to fire off spells & combos. I know this because I ran it through colour filters and it's clinically proven. I am an expert in adjusting colours. He's even got a sock handy.

NEOWatcher
2011-Feb-28, 03:12 PM
Wow. That's kind of sad.Well, you know... Who has time for stargazing or astronomy with all of our little distractions these days?
The problem is that it's not just limited to what people see now.
There's entire histories of observations, nomenclature, pre-Renaissance science, and a whole host of related topics that apply to not knowing this.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-28, 06:40 PM
I mean, I learned that Saturn was a naked-eye object when I learned the definition of planet.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-28, 11:38 PM
Seems to me that was grade 7 or 8 science class for me.

Space Chimp
2011-Mar-02, 08:16 PM
I mean, I learned that Saturn was a naked-eye object when I learned the definition of planet.

It's possible most the people I mentioned may have learned earlier in life that most of the planets were first observed and named by the ancients, but like a lot of us only retained later what they found interesting or important.

I recall an admitting nurse, who when I was brought into the hospital for a sprained ankle proudly noted I was a Taurus by the birth date on my form and proceeded to do the same for other patients admitted after me.

I realize that Astrology isn't taught in school nor should it, but I can't call out Zodiac signs by birth date...nor do I care to learn.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-02, 08:23 PM
I can . . . because I learned the mythology. It's why I know as many constellations as I do.

Strange
2011-Mar-02, 08:37 PM
and because you are a girl :)

Gillianren
2011-Mar-02, 09:01 PM
Um . . . .

Strange
2011-Mar-02, 09:04 PM
just kidding, honest ... it just seems to be a particularly feminine ability (or penchant, whatever) to know birth signs.

JeffD1
2011-Mar-02, 11:36 PM
I can . . . because I learned the mythology. It's why I know as many constellations as I do.

Well that explains why I cannot name but a few constellations. When I first learned of constellations, which was taught in school, in history class when speaking about the Greek and Roman cultures, and the stories those ancients had made about them, I considered it all foolishness and superstition. So I could not get interested in it. As for Astrology, the very notion that one's place in a vast universe at the time of their birth could have any bearing whatsoever on their personality or future was beyond ridiculous to me even as a kid.

captain swoop
2011-Mar-03, 01:26 PM
Are you claiming that astrology works but only for females?

Seems like an ATM claim to me an very possible off topic.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-03, 07:25 PM
Well that explains why I cannot name but a few constellations. When I first learned of constellations, which was taught in school, in history class when speaking about the Greek and Roman cultures, and the stories those ancients had made about them, I considered it all foolishness and superstition. So I could not get interested in it.

Ah. See, I saw mythology as fascinating stories which told you a great deal about the culture wherein they arose. Literature and anthropology all rolled into one, and with a fair amount of etymology to boot.

kamaz
2011-Mar-03, 08:34 PM
I recall an admitting nurse, who when I was brought into the hospital for a sprained ankle proudly noted I was a Taurus by the birth date on my form and proceeded to do the same for other patients admitted after me.


If her job involved keeping track of patients, it could have been a memorization technique. A (Zodiac_sign, approximate_age) pair is much simpler to remember then a name. And since the patient's file has a birth date near the top, she would be able to quickly check for potential patient/file mixups.

kamaz
2011-Mar-03, 08:39 PM
[Mythology is] Literature and anthropology all rolled into one, and with a fair amount of etymology to boot.

With a fair amount of sex and violence, to make for better reading!

Swift
2011-Mar-03, 08:47 PM
I was OK with some care-free, somewhat off-topic banter for a bit, but this is becoming a complete derailment. Please, everyone, no more. If there is nothing more to say about the OP, then just leave it be.

NGCHunter
2011-Mar-09, 06:45 PM
It's not just bright stars anymore; the latest conspiracy tale is that Elenin is a cover-up for the true Nibiru. Its orbit is highly elliptical (what long period comet isn't), Elenin's first three letters spell "ELE," and it's going to approach the earth to within about a quarter of an astronomical unit, so that's apparently "good enough" for some to jump to the conclusion that it's secretly the mythical planet come to kill us all. Of course, in order to work, this conspiracy has to maintain that Leonid Elenin isn't a real amateur astronomer (he's either completely made up with a fake photo or he's part of the conspiracy) and anyone who photographs the comet is lying (Nibiru is only visible to IRAS and WISE which is why no one saw it... except the Mayans; they're "mystics" so they can do anything).

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the most popular Nibiru belief system maintains that it should reach perihelion and cause massive devastation by, or on, December 21, 2012. We're already into 2011 and yet no amateur astronomers have found any sign of any approaching brown dwarf, planet, or imperial death star. They have to start coming up with some explanation and in their minds it "must" be out there, so it makes perfect sense to them that it's a bright star and they're just the first to notice it, or it's a newly discovered comet in the solar system and the conspiracy will just continually grow to include anyone who observes it to be a comet. Either one only becomes more irrational with every passing day, but it's as if any given Nibiru believer's tolerance for irrational explanations is directly proportional to the current date's proximity to 2012. If I'm right then we can not only expect to see more of this as we get closer to December 2012, we can expect to see it take on newer, more irrational forms as well.