http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Speaking of, here is a new modeling based in a statistical model instead of climate models directly. They concluded that warming is indeed happening, perhaps not as large as other models though. They even attribute the last 250 years of warming as man made, even as they were previous warming skeptics. Ironically, climate and weather are some of the hardest things model and yet, most important for continued life on this planet. With more and more studies showing CO2 being a large issue, it is a cry that is quickly becoming hard for the skeptic to ignore.

On that note, did you know that without the atmosphere, the earth would be −18°C? The Greenhouse effect keeps us alive, but as we can see with Venus, it can also make us dead. But there are about 8123918237912837 *citation needed* things that effect the weather/climate as well, so always best to be vigillant in that area.

2012 KT42 is an asteroid discovered by Alex R. Gibbs of the Mt. Lemmon Survey (part of the Catalina Sky Survey) with a 1.5-m reflector + CCD on May 28, 2012. The asteroid had a close approach to the Earth on May 29, 2012, approaching to only Distance: ~8950 miles / ~14,440 km above the planet's surface. This means 2012 KT42 came inside the Clarke Belt of geosynchronous satellites. As of May 28, 2012, the estimated 5 to 10 meter wide asteroid ranked #6 on the top 20 list of closest-approaches to Earth. There was no danger of a collision during the close approach. 2012 KT42 will pass roughly 0.01 AU (1,500,000 km; 930,000 mi) from Venus on 2012 July 8.[3]

It is estimated that an impact would produce an upper atmosphere air burst equivalent to 11 kt TNT,[4] roughly equal to Hiroshima's Little Boy. The asteroid would be vaporized as these small impacts occur approximately once per year. A comparable-sized object caused the Sutter's Mill meteorite in California on 2012 April 22. It was removed from the Sentry Risk Table on 2012 May 30.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_KT42

Mars, Venus.. it makes sense.

No, I did not see the light bleed at the space center. I imagine what you're seeing (and I see it too in this video) could be the result of the digital video processing of the image, after the fact.>> ^messenger:

To be clear, you too noticed the background image of the sun coming through the planet Venus live at the Space Centre?>> ^Trancecoach:
I saw it with mine own eyes yesterday (at the Chabot Space Center in Oakland, CA).. It's not an effect.>> ^messenger:
If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?

yes but I dont think anyone is conpirationally(TM) worried like you are..bleeding camera seems good...or gravity bending light etc...

>> ^messenger:

To be clear, you too noticed the background image of the sun coming through the planet Venus live at the Space Centre?>> ^Trancecoach:
I saw it with mine own eyes yesterday (at the Chabot Space Center in Oakland, CA).. It's not an effect.>> ^messenger:
If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?

To be clear, you too noticed the background image of the sun coming through the planet Venus live at the Space Centre?>> ^Trancecoach:

I saw it with mine own eyes yesterday (at the Chabot Space Center in Oakland, CA).. It's not an effect.>> ^messenger:
If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?

>> ^messenger:

If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?


Mein Gott, a conspiracy! My guess: camera artifact, bleeding of the light surrounding the planet.

I saw it with mine own eyes yesterday (at the Chabot Space Center in Oakland, CA).. It's not an effect.>> ^messenger:

If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?

If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?

Fact 1: An estimated (the number may be higher) 1.6 planets per star in our galaxy
http://www.space.com/14200-160-billion-alien-planets-milky-galaxy.html

Fact 2: 100 billion galaxies:
We know there are that many, because we've seen them. The hubble space telescope was pointed at a tiny , random black spot in the sky (where no stars from our own galaxy was blocking the field of view) and found 10000 galaxies in that tiny spot about 1/12millionth of the sky. Extrapolating that out, we get that there are atleast 100 billion galaxies, and each of them contains hundreds of millions of stars.

Fact 3:The moon has its own gravity.
Well duh...

Fact 4: 8 Planets in our solar system.
This is of course very well documented. You can see several of them on any given night. One of them , Venus will infact pass directly in front of the sun in a few days, on the 6th of June! That also happened in 2004, but the next one wont be for another 105 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus

Fact 5: There were galaxies in the early universe. These have been seen by the Hubble telescope and other observatories:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

Fact 6:The earths tilted axis causes seasons: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/v/how-earth-s-tilt-causes-seasons

More later..

Thanks for the effort. I like this one too, but don't wanna spend a power point on it. * promote and * quality are the ones you get to use on other people's sifts. They're enough.>> ^chingalera:

beg
edit: Tried to suggest making the beg function work for other people's videos in my first sift-talk post. Guess it still doesn't.

It's hard to think of a group from the last 50 years who have written and performed more influential Rock and Roots music, and who fewer people know by name than "The Band". I just don't get it. I guess part of the answer is the fact that they pretty much dropped off the map completely after "The Last Waltz" in 1976.

I've mentioned to several friends over the past couple of days just how saddened I was by Levon's death, and the inevitable response is "Who?".

But everybody knows the music. Maybe that's enough.

As for Levon- he's on his way to Venus to meet his son Jesus.

Well, he's certainly not a fry cook on Venus.>> ^Kreegath:

Doesn't it seem sad, somehow? A chubbier, balding, middle-aged Ferris, doing the same routine alone because his friends have all grown up and moved on. I guess there's a moral in there somewhere about conceit and ambitionless high school popularity.

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens:

There is a very important fact underlying this entire argument about Venus that you seem to be missing. Mentioning a bright point of light in a Bible verse is not the same thing as mentioning a planet in a Bible verse.

I acknowledged that I misunderstood your original point here and here so I don't know why you are restating it as if it's something new. I made a mistake; let's move on.

The Peter verse is not mentioning anything other than a bright source rising in your heart. Not at all a reference to even anything astronomical, so that's not worth mentioning anymore. The Isaiah passage could be referring to anything in the sky, or even anything at all quite frankly. It could be talking about the moon, or the sun, or any other star, or planet they thought was a star.

Why would they say "lucifer" then? It sounds like you think it was a generic term for any bright object and I have not seen evidence supporting that. If there is some, show me.

Furthermore, that metaphor is complete trash, because if it was referring to Venus, it would be completely wrong, as Venus travels across the entire sky, just like any other planet. There are nights where Venus is very high into the sky, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Generally Venus is only visible near the horizon as it gets washed out by the sun. The allegory of the King is that he tried to position himself above God and failed. During Venus's Morning Star phase, it rises ahead of the sun only to vanish in the daylight. It could also be that, as an inferior planet, Venus appears to get ahead of and then fall behind the other stars. Neither is a bad metaphor for what happened to the King, though I like the former explanation better than the latter.

There is no use arguing about it though, the Bible is written and won't change.

Of course it will. It has changed dozens of times. With each new edition it is "translated" to more closely represent the story the translators wish it was. That's how "Lucifer" became an alias for Satan in the first place. Will it ever tell us things we don't already know? Of course not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.