Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:01 am

Posted by Admin on 03/26/2015
All stars rotate East to West around Polaris just above the central North Pole like in a planetarium dome. The planetarium dome of our Earth however is so vast that the law of perspective doesn't allow you to see all the stars from any one vantage point. You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn. The supposed "South Pole star," Southern Crux and other outer constellations conversely can NOT be seen from every point in the Southern Hemi"sphere" the way Polaris can from every point in the North. Nor do the Southern constellations circle around it West to East as is claimed. All stars rise more or less in the East and set in the West, with the angle/inclination being based on where you are on Earth and what direction you're facing.

“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south - pole star included - sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (286)

“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:01 am

Posted by Admin on 03/27/2015
Yes, but this doesn't:

Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere' Smiley

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:01 am

Posted by Admin on 03/27/2015
That's an over-simplified explanation they give to support the ball model. All the way to the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degrees South latitude you can see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and the other stars above/near the North Pole rising in the East and setting in the West. What they call the "South Pole star" and its surrounding constellations like the Southern Cross are NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY VISIBLE from everywhere in the South like Polaris and surrounding constellations ARE from the North. This means it is not a "South Pole star" in the way Polaris is a North Pole star. And if you can see Polaris and neighboring stars rising East and setting West all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn, then it's not as simple as "they appear to move clockwise in the North and anticlockwise in the South. At the equatorial ring they appear to curve away from each other." Depending on where you are on Earth and what direction you're facing at what time will determine which stars and how their apparent movement across the sky will be.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:02 am

Posted by Admin on 03/30/2015
This shows exactly what I'm saying about the over-simplification the Ball-Earth-Establishment uses when discussing the movement of the stars. It is not as simple as clockwise around Polaris in the North, counter-clockwise around Sigma Octanis, and straight lines over the equator as they claim! In the picture you can see in the North all the stars revolving around Polaris, yet in the same picture you can see some more Southern stars making in inverted arc, but they're all rising more or less in the East and setting more or less in the West. The exact angle, inclination and direction depends on where you are on Earth and what direction you're facing and the law of perspective causes the arcing.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:02 am

Posted by on 03/30/2015
Please, watch this video, starting minute 20:25. It is about the stars south from equator. If somebody could sent me a file where I could translate it in English, I'd gladly do it.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22cc4w_plaska-ziemia-czesc-1-dluga-wersja-uzupelniona-a-wiec-dlaczego-uwazam-ze-ziemia-jest-plaska-maszty-s_tech

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:03 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 03/30/2015

Mar 28, 2015 8:37:48 GMT Lewis said:

Definitely a sticking point for me too. Stars rotate counter-clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south. I appreciate all the great information here, but I'm not finding a convincing theory for why that would happen on a flat earth.

How is the information convincing to you if you don't even seem to accept or believe it, just because you cannot understand what Eric explained to you?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:03 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 04/01/2015

Mar 31, 2015 16:17:48 GMT augustraven said:
Yeah lol it is totally wrong; I hesitated posting is actually, but was just thinking that it could offer a perspective on the issue-such as if the star trails seemed more consistent with that map then maybe it would point to some other principle in the shape or distorting quality that the Firmament might have.

As a side question, do people here believe that the stars are within the Firmament-like, embedded in it-or are they outside of it and is the light bent through the firmament as it passes through?

I was thinking as well, as I have been pondering this for days and days now...it really is NOT as simple as the motion of Stars being a clockwise one in the Southern side of the equator and anti-clockwise in the Nothern side..it would just deoend which way you faced, surely?

This is really boggling my mind, I am waiting for an epiphany, when it suddenly clicks for me.

As Eric has said regarding the movement of the stars, it is all a matter of perspective.

As for whether they are within the Firmament or not, I am not sure. That is a good question though, and one that you should definitely ask Eric.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:04 am

Posted by Admin on 04/01/2015
I don't know the answer to that either. Speaking of the subject, what do people think of this?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:04 am

That is an interesting video. Do you think that the meteorites could be falling 'stars'? If not, do you think that the meteorites are simply parts of the dome breaking off and falling from the sky?

I am sure that the Director was hiding something in plain sight when he had the word Sirius written on the falling object. I wonder what that means and what is has to do with the actual Sirius star?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:05 am

Posted by haritz on 04/01/2015

The Illuminati bring the Book of Revelation to fruition by staging its events, Francis Bacon style.

This includes the meteorites or falling stars that seem very likely to be missiles in this video. Notice how they are so prevalent in Russia, where almost the entire population has dash-cams... How convenient.

Though stars may have fallen as part of the last great upheaval, and though the memory of this chaos may have been carried on via oral and written transmissions, it seems that much of what this video portrays is a hoax, meant to help usher in the global ruler. This sends flat earth seekers into illusions and tangents.

Werner Von Braun mentioned that meteorites would be the final fear-mongering tactic before the staged alien alien invasion.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:06 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 04/01/2015

The Illuminati bring the Book of Revelation to fruition by staging its events, Francis Bacon style.

This includes the meteorites or falling stars that seem very likely to be missiles in this video. Notice how they are so prevalent in Russia, where almost the entire population has dash-cams... How convenient.

Though stars may have fallen as part of the last great upheaval, and though the memory of this chaos may have been carried on via oral and written transmissions, it seems that much of what this video portrays is a hoax, meant to help usher in the global ruler. This sends flat earth seekers into illusions and tangents.

Werner Von Braun mentioned that meteorites would be the final fear-mongering tactic before the staged alien alien invasion.

Thank you for the brilliant comment, Haritz.

This would make a lot of sense. They could very well be missiles.

When do you think that the last genuine meteorite fell, and what do you think of the glass found nearby, such as the Libyan Desert Glass?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:06 am

Posted by Admin on 04/01/2015
Just before he died in an interview with Carol Rosin, he said that in order to sustain the military-industrial complex, first they had created the “Cold War” threat. Once that veil was lifted, a false “terrorist” threat would be created and propagated to the public. Once that was seen through they would create a false asteroid threat to be dealt with in an “Armageddon” military-industrial manner. Then their last card is to stage a fake alien invasion using their classified anti-gravity “UFO” technology.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:06 am

Posted by Admin on 04/02/2015
If you are standing at the North Pole directly under Polaris, every direction is South. As you begin moving Southwards from the North Pole, East is to your left and West is to your right. North and South are straight lines of longitude, while East and West are circles of latitude going outwards to the point in your picture. The person in the picture is facing South and there is no "South Pole" or "South Pole star." The magnetism and navigation of Earth is like a ring magnet found in loudspeakers with the Pole in the center and the opposite "Pole" being every point along the outer circumference. So North is in the middle and South is every straight line outward from the middle. The Southern Cross, Sigma Octantis and other Southern stars rotate around the circle of the Earth every 24 hours, so at sometime during the day/night those stars will be right in front of you and 12 hours later directly behind you on the other side of the world/Antarctica.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:07 am

Posted by haritz on 04/02/2015

Mar 31, 2015 17:53:35 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Mar 31, 2015 17:50:11 GMT haritz said:
The Illuminati bring the Book of Revelation to fruition by staging its events, Francis Bacon style.

This includes the meteorites or falling stars that seem very likely to be missiles in this video. Notice how they are so prevalent in Russia, where almost the entire population has dash-cams... How convenient.

Though stars may have fallen as part of the last great upheaval, and though the memory of this chaos may have been carried on via oral and written transmissions, it seems that much of what this video portrays is a hoax, meant to help usher in the global ruler. This sends flat earth seekers into illusions and tangents.

Werner Von Braun mentioned that meteorites would be the final fear-mongering tactic before the staged alien alien invasion.

Thank you for the brilliant comment, Haritz.

This would make a lot of sense. They could very well be missiles.

When do you think that the last genuine meteorite fell, and what do you think of the glass found nearby, such as the Libyan Desert Glass?

My pleasure.

...No idea about when the last genuine meteorite fell, though likely not too long ago. Now, the question is: what is the origin of the meteors? And is the current image of meteors even genuine?

It seems to me that the large meteor craters are hoaxes. They look less like impact sites and more like volcanic calderas: www.mreclipse.com/Observatory/Crater/full/Crater99-111w.JPG. They remind me of clam blowholes in mudflats...which could explain what they are...the openings of collapsed or highly-pressurized gas chambers.

An ancient Naga Indian record states that the Andes and Himalayan mountains formed during the time of the great deluge. In recounts how the deluge created the great flood, and the flood depressed certain land areas as the weight of the excess water collapsed the gas chambers underneath the land's surface. As the land masses settled, oceans formed, and mountain ranges formed where the land became buckled, often along the edges of land and ocean. This history explains how it is that many mountain ranges formed along the edge of continents, e.g. the Andes and Rockies. And reveals how "meteor" craters could be gas calderas.

If gas rocketed out of blow-holes at the surface and caught fire, the heat would be sufficient to create glass if sand was present. Lightning or other electric phenomena could also fuse the sand...and the Libyan Desert sand may be fulgurite fragments that are polished by shifting sands over the centuries.

In regards to the origin of meteorites, though levitation of rocks may seem improbable, historical records show multiple accounts of hundreds of frogs and whole schools of fish dropping out of the sky. Maybe small rocks could do the same.

And it could be that the majority of alleged meteorites are simply dislocated rocks or globules of alloyed metal that formed naturally and survived longer than the surrounding rock that weathered away.

Overall, the meteor narrative dovetails nicely with the tales of extinct dinosaurs and asteroid belts and whirling planets, but might not hold up to inspection. After all, it is promoted by NASA and Murdoch's National Geographic and Disney...all propaganda outlets.

Thoughts?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:07 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 04/02/2015

Apr 1, 2015 21:12:29 GMT haritz said:
Mar 31, 2015 17:53:35 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Thank you for the brilliant comment, Haritz.

This would make a lot of sense. They could very well be missiles.

When do you think that the last genuine meteorite fell, and what do you think of the glass found nearby, such as the Libyan Desert Glass?

My pleasure.

...No idea about when the last genuine meteorite fell, though likely not too long ago. Now, the question is: what is the origin of the meteors? And is the current image of meteors even genuine?

It seems to me that the large meteor craters are hoaxes. They look less like impact sites and more like volcanic calderas: www.mreclipse.com/Observatory/Crater/full/Crater99-111w.JPG. They remind me of clam blowholes in mudflats...which could explain what they are...the openings of collapsed or highly-pressurized gas chambers.

An ancient Naga Indian record states that the Andes and Himalayan mountains formed during the time of the great deluge. In recounts how the deluge created the great flood, and the flood depressed certain land areas as the weight of the excess water collapsed the gas chambers underneath the land's surface. As the land masses settled, oceans formed, and mountain ranges formed where the land became buckled, often along the edges of land and ocean. This history explains how it is that many mountain ranges formed along the edge of continents, e.g. the Andes and Rockies. And reveals how "meteor" craters could be gas calderas.

If gas rocketed out of blow-holes at the surface and caught fire, the heat would be sufficient to create glass if sand was present. Lightning or other electric phenomena could also fuse the sand...and the Libyan Desert sand may be fulgurite fragments that are polished by shifting sands over the centuries.

In regards to the origin of meteorites, though levitation of rocks may seem improbable, historical records show multiple accounts of hundreds of frogs and whole schools of fish dropping out of the sky. Maybe small rocks could do the same.

And it could be that the majority of alleged meteorites are simply dislocated rocks or globules of alloyed metal that formed naturally and survived longer than the surrounding rock that weathered away.

Overall, the meteor narrative dovetails nicely with the tales of extinct dinosaurs and asteroid belts and whirling planets, but might not hold up to inspection. After all, it is promoted by NASA and Murdoch's National Geographic and Disney...all propaganda outlets.

Thoughts?

Thank you so much for the detailed and interesting reply.

What you have described/explained makes a lot of sense, and you are correct in being wary of any National Geographic/Disney propaganda.

Having thought about it, it does seem very likely that what are described as craters are in fact just Calderas, and it also makes a lot of sense that the glass would form due to the surrounding sand.

The Naga Indian records also seem to fit this theory. I definitely think that you are on to something, and that it now seems likely that 'meteorites' as they are regularly described don't actually exist.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:08 am

Posted by Admin on 04/09/2015
Watch the "Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe" video again if you think the stars "apparent movement in the sky is completely incompatible with the flat Earth!" Are you kidding? The stationary flat model is the only one that explains the fixed stars fixed movements around us! What is your hang-up on this issue augustraven? If the Earth is rotating at 1000mph, spinning around the Sun at 67,000mph, spiraling around the Milky Way at 500,000mph, and shooting through the universe away from the Big Bang at 670,000,000mph as they claim it is (AND YOU HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM "BELIEVING" THIS YOUR WHOLE LIFE UNTIL NOW) yet this is "completely incompatible" with REALITY. Airy's Failure, Sagnac's experiment and several others have proven it is the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth AND you can see Polaris down to the Tropic of Capricorn, and Ursa Major/Minor down to 30 degrees South latitude. These facts prove the flat, stationary Earth with stars revolving around us. I've explained the motions and perspective, there is no "Pole Star Conundrum" for flat Earthers, the real Pole Star Conundrum is for ball-Earthers to explain. Tell me how this works with the spinning ball model Raven:

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:08 am

Posted by Admin on 04/10/2015

Apr 9, 2015 14:00:07 GMT augustraven said:
The stars would have to be quadrillions of miles away to remain fixed in relation to each other, and Polaris would of course have to be extremely far away to remain in the same place in the night sky. Heliocentrism is out! :-)

The mystery, or conundrum of the so called 'Pole' stars is this:

At the North Pole, the stars move in concentric circles around Polaris, and as one moves South, this pattern of circles gets lower in the sky from the point of view of the observer. As you pass the 'equator', the stars move over head in an arch and Polaris disappears over the Northern horizon. This is due to perspective and the vanishing point of the observer.

All this makes sense on the Flat Earth; but as you move further South and look towards the Southern direction from where you are standing, you will notice that the stars in the Southern sky once again begin to move in concentric circles around another star, Sigma Octantis. They move the opposite direction than the stars moving around Polaris, and they create concentric star trails the exact same way the stars do in the North.

In other words, the stars in the night sky appear to move around TWO points, in axial motions. This is easily proven from the thousands of amateur photos of star trails taken from, say, Australia, camera pointing to the Southern skies.

Please could you or someone else explain where second axial rotation point comes from? I know Sigma Octantis is not the 'South pole star', it is very dim compared to Polaris, it is not perfectly still in the sky, and actually traces a very small circle in the sky itself; but if you look at any photo of the Southern skies you can unmistakably see the same concentric circle pattern you see in the North.

The stars would NOT "have to be quadrillions of miles away to remain fixed in relation to each other" nor would Polaris "of course have to be extremely far away to remain in the same place in the night sky." The stars are all relatively close to the surface of the Earth, within a few thousand miles as measured by sextants. Again, it is not "as you pass the equator that Polaris disappears over the Northern horizon," but at the Tropic of Capricorn 23 degrees of latitude further South than the equator. Also, AGAIN, the stars in the southern sky do NOT all move in concentric circles around Sigma Octantis, since they cannot be seen simultaneously from every point in Antarctica the way Polaris and surrounding stars can be seen in the North. The circling effect is caused by the law of perspective on plane surfaces depending on where/when/what direction you're facing in the deep Southern latitudes. As shown in this picture Gallette linked to earlier, it is NOT as simple as you and the ball-Earth model are suggesting, that stars go one way in the North, opposite in the South and straight along the equator... that is simply not the case. And the fact that you can photograph BOTH of these "star circles" simultaneously from many places on Earth proves we're not on a ball with two pole stars.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:09 am

Posted by schpankme on 04/10/2015

Apr 9, 2015 14:59:06 GMT truthseeker said:
[Southern Pole Star]
the observations are easily verifiable by any person
star trails .. time lapse photos
not conspiracy
no agenda

There is no South Pole.

From the equator, the north pole star and many other constellations can be seen from every meridian simultaneously;
whereas in the South, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the
Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south sweep
over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning.
~ revision, Earth Not a Globe

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:09 am

Posted by Admin on 04/12/2015

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:10 am

Posted by Admin on 04/14/2015
I love their constant reverse-engineered, back-peddling, damage-control excuses used to bolster their ball(s). It's like the "constantly moving geomagnetic north and south poles," complete bullshit, but packaged with the trimmings of "science" so the public eats it up.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:10 am

Posted by schpankme on 04/14/2015

Apr 14, 2015 7:08:15 GMT Admin said:
I love their constant reverse-engineered, back-peddling, damage-control excuses used to bolster their ball(s)

Prepare yourself for the Pole Flips

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:10 am

Posted by Admin on 04/15/2015
Right!? I'm quite tired of all the "Pole Shift" fear porn which peaked around 2012 but people still message me about it constantly. For the record, there is only one Pole, the North Pole, the immovable center of the universe and it's not going anywhere.

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:11 am

Posted by davidkay on 04/19/2015
www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ST_IMG_0134-IMG_0193_great_falls_startrails.jpg

I got this! I have figured out how this fucker works! The sky! The stars! The circles! I know how this photo fits with flat earth! I have sat for couple of hours sketching this from multiple angles and perspectives! And I found it! PLease check this out if this is plausible or is it just me. I'm no expert in any of the sciences so this will surely need validation, but my take on this one is here is here! I spent last hours making this in inkscape to make it as much clear and simple as posible. It's very rushed and inaccurate, but I think I'm very close! Here's the link!!!:

drive.google.com/file/d/0B460_QGDkFgSXzVKbHg4LVJ5R1U/view?usp=sharing

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:11 am

Posted by Admin on 04/19/2015
Great pictorial explanation Davidkay! You nailed it. I don't know what Schpankme's talking about. Your conclusion is spot-on and I don't see that star trails picture as being fake (and even if it was your explanation/diagrams are still valid). What makes you think the picture is fake and David's conclusion is invalid Schpankme?

by Thinkforyourself Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:11 am

Posted by Admin on 04/19/2015
Whether there's a physical dome or not the stars do move around in a planetarium dome style shape as DavidKay shows amazingly well in his illustration. You cannot see the supposed "South Celestial Pole" as it does not exist, you're just seeing part of the southern arc caused by the law of perspective as explained in the graphic. In fact, the article you posted about how to "find" the southern (non) pole-star is quite revealing on that issue: link

In the northern hemisphere, the bright and easy-to-find star Polaris marks the position of the north celestial pole. This makes it easy for stargazers and navigators to find north, and get oriented in the night sky. But in the southern hemisphere, it is different. By sheer bad luck, the south celestial pole (SCP), the imaginary point in the sky directly above the Earth’s south pole, coincides with no bright star, and the southern polar sky has few other guides to find the pole.

They even admit there is no South Pole star but then proceed to direct you to random southern star Sigma Octantis which you can't even see with the naked eye. It's just like the red/white barbershop pole with the ball-Earth on it at the ceremonial "South Pole," which they admit isn't the South Pole! They can even openly admit the truth but people prefer to believe the lies.

by Sponsored content

Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'

Re: Star Trails In The Northern And Southern 'Hemisphere'