Can anyone proove or disproove the "facts" of this article? -i mean the imagery from NASA and the claimed environmental changes of the planets?
The article is called "Interplanetary 'Day After Tomorrow?'"
I would greatly appriciate it if someone with planatary knowlegde would take that time to read this article and post their comments, or if anyone has read it before can post their views.
this link is the link, since i'm too newbie to be allowed to embed links:
www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-14-2004_Interplanetary_Part_1/Interplanetary_1.htm
If you use Google to check these ideas you will find they are wrong, or attributed to other reasons (like Mars is heading towards the Sun so is naturally warming up).
That site looks pretty hoaxtacular... I've seen something similar from a Russian report back at the end of last decade though. Maybe his report actually holds some merit, but since it's so technical, I recommend leaving wikipedia open in a different browser window.
Think I've posted this a couple times, so if anyone's already seen it and scoffed, my apologies. Bring your thoughts!
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html
Think I've posted this a couple times, so if anyone's already seen it and scoffed, my apologies. Bring your thoughts!
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html
I've followed enterprisemission in the past. I used to think the things Richard Hoagland discussed were realistic, but with a few years of education behind me I must admit I'm a little more dubious of his claims. The main reason for that is that he jumps to conclusions very quickly, but using the scientific mode of thought a hypothesis can take some time before it turns into a theory.
He claims to have be a friend of Walter Cronkite, but from what i've read Cronkite distances himself whenever possible. As to the web page referred to at the top of this thread, Hoagland claims that this data was gleaned from publicly available sources, so it shouldn't be too hard to track down.
It comes down to this--until you look into things like this yourself you will never know.
My advice is to go through the links he has referenced in this "paper" and see if he's taken anything out of context.
He claims to have be a friend of Walter Cronkite, but from what i've read Cronkite distances himself whenever possible. As to the web page referred to at the top of this thread, Hoagland claims that this data was gleaned from publicly available sources, so it shouldn't be too hard to track down.
It comes down to this--until you look into things like this yourself you will never know.
My advice is to go through the links he has referenced in this "paper" and see if he's taken anything out of context.
I speculate that the real truth about earth's climate or the solar system's current state is somewhere in the spectrum between the naysayers and the doomsayers.
It's just finding exactly where that's the problem.
If you ask me though, a lot of signs are pointing to synchronized changes for mankind in the very near future.
It's just finding exactly where that's the problem.
If you ask me though, a lot of signs are pointing to synchronized changes for mankind in the very near future.
Grimelf: That's very little evidence for some of those issues like "Ice on Mercury", which intuitively sounds preposterous. And why might the ice appear at the pole of Mercury (much more exposed to solar energy than the equator of the side not facing the sun.) Nothing new since 1992?
Mercury Polar Ice
That Richard C. Hoagland, David Wilcock website looks highly speculative to me.
I think it looks to me like these naysayers who are trying to assign all global warming to solar fluctuations in the face of the most obvious mechanism, GHG's, are just huge efforts at distraction sucking in the gullible and wishfull thinkers.
Mercury Polar Ice
That Richard C. Hoagland, David Wilcock website looks highly speculative to me.
I think it looks to me like these naysayers who are trying to assign all global warming to solar fluctuations in the face of the most obvious mechanism, GHG's, are just huge efforts at distraction sucking in the gullible and wishfull thinkers.