The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 08:39:20 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 08:33:53 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 07:02:27 AM

What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.

You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?

I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?

Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:03:28 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 08:39:20 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 08:33:53 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 07:02:27 AM

What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.

You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?

I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?

Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax

Being zetetic has nothing to do with owning a gravimeter.

Gravimeters are accelerometers.  They measure your acceleration due to gravitation specifically.

Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 02:45:12 PM

Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)

We say no such thing. 

Also we did not miss the part where you observe something and make up a falsehood to test against.

You never actually test if anything is true.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 04:12:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 02:45:12 PM

Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)

We say no such thing. 

Also we did not miss the part where you observe something and make up a falsehood to test against.

Actually you sometimes do. Example conspiracy, moonlight, sunlight, bedford levels. how come no one outside of FES has reproduced these results. there is nothing logically wrong with the falsehood thing as long as you test against it. In america we go by innocent until guilty. and why do you have a problem with the scientific method? without it you wouldn't be reading this post. I wouldn't be alive without it personally. can your method say the same?

Zetetic thinking is esentially the first part of the S.M. however it lets you use the power of subjectivity to argue. word like untrustworthy and probably untrue are not scientific.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 19, 2010, 03:01:16 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 09:03:28 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 08:39:20 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 08:33:53 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 07:02:27 AM

What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.

You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?

I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?

Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax

Being zetetic has nothing to do with owning a gravimeter.

Gravimeters are accelerometers.  They measure your acceleration due to gravitation specifically.

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

To be serious, you really cannot take part of theories, only the parts that match your needs. The modern science, is based on a round earth. If you change the domain, claiming the earth is flat, you CANNOT use theories based on a round earth. You have to start your own physic. I wanna show the first parts of your faq to clarify that:

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

So, the earth is finite or infinite? This first claim, really has an impact on your theory: if you assume the earth is infinite, you have to start your own physic. Good luck

Q: "Why are other planets round, but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Tell me why, damn. Why the earth is special?

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Are you serious? Things that you dont know how to answer are "uknown"? Really cute scientific method.

Q: "Aren't the accelerating Earth models flawed? Wouldn't planes crash into the Earth as it rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

So, the air lift is more powerful than the speed of light, because if we cannot reach it, oh well, we are so close to it nowadays.

Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

You cannot use special relativity model only when you are pleased. Special relativity is based on a round earth. You fail.

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

Secondly, fine.  Do this:  http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/meter.htm

You were wrong.  We are accelerating either model.

To be serious, you really cannot take part of theories, only the parts that match your needs. The modern science, is based on a round earth. If you change the domain, claiming the earth is flat, you CANNOT use theories based on a round earth. You have to start your own physic. I wanna show the first parts of your faq to clarify that:

Do you have reason or rhyme to back this claim up?  Why would you have to discount all of science?

So, the earth is finite or infinite? This first claim, really has an impact on your theory: if you assume the earth is infinite, you have to start your own physic. Good luck

Infinite.

Why would I have to start my own "physic"?  It fits fine within physics.

Tell me why, damn. Why the earth is special?

Its the only infinite body in the universe.  For one.

Are you serious? Things that you dont know how to answer are "uknown"? Really cute scientific method.

Thats how it works in either method.

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

So, the air lift is more powerful than the speed of light, because if we cannot reach it, oh well, we are so close to it nowadays.
[/quote]
No, air lift is not more powerful than the speed of light.  Speed does not matter, what does is acceleration.  Review the equiv. principle.

Quote

Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"
A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

You cannot use special relativity model only when you are pleased. Special relativity is based on a round earth. You fail.

Again, you give no reason to why we should discount the accurate parts of relativity.  Glob Science does it all the time.  For example, Relativity discounts much of Newtons work, but you don't throw it all out.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 03:13:14 AM

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 03:27:40 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 03:13:14 AM

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.

You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"

You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"

Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 04:14:21 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 03:27:40 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 03:13:14 AM

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.

No man, stop it. First of all, you have to prove earth is infinite. And you know better than me than you cannot prove this, so your theory is destroyed from the beginning. If you dont believe there is a hoax, why you cannot take the nasa pictures and see by yourself that the earth is round?

I have proof that earth is round. It is called lunar eclipse. How can you justify lunar eclipse with your model? The only way to have eclipse, is that the earth puts itself between the sun and the moon. Now, if the earth is an infinite plane, explain this:

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:49:38 AM

You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"

Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.

And again. This is annoying. It IS masses that cause gravitational pull. You know, relativity. Einstein, do you know? Or are you taking again only the part of the theory that you like?

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 06:27:20 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:49:38 AM

You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"

Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.

And again. This is annoying. It IS masses that cause gravitational pull. You know, relativity. Einstein, do you know? Or are you taking again only the part of the theory that you like?

He was referring to a different flat earth theory.  In mine mass creates gravitational pull.

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 04:16:41 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 04:14:21 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 03:27:40 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 03:13:14 AM

I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.

No man, stop it. First of all, you have to prove earth is infinite. And you know better than me than you cannot prove this, so your theory is destroyed from the beginning. If you dont believe there is a hoax, why you cannot take the nasa pictures and see by yourself that the earth is round?

I have proof that earth is round. It is called lunar eclipse. How can you justify lunar eclipse with your model? The only way to have eclipse, is that the earth puts itself between the sun and the moon. Now, if the earth is an infinite plane, explain this:

I can't prove the earth is infinite, becaues its impossible to "prove" anything in reality.  I can supply evidence.  I have given you the means to see such evidence first hand.  There is no difference in gravitational pull at higher altitudes if one takes into local geography and the heavens.  This is evidence towards the reality of the infinite plane.

That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.

Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.

That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.

Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.

This is a warning not to make personal attacks and to post content-filled posts.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:45:59 AM

That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.

Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 06:48:40 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:45:59 AM

That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.

Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?

I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 06:46:52 AM

Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.

This is a warning not to make personal attacks and to post content-filled posts.

This is a warning, answer all the questions, not the only one that you like. Stop trolling. Give answers.

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:09:55 AM

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.

Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 07:50:16 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:09:55 AM

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.

Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://

Give me yours

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:51:51 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 06:48:40 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:45:59 AM

That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.

Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?

I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

Can I see your results from this test?

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:55:00 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 07:50:16 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:09:55 AM

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.

Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 09:02:19 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:55:00 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 07:50:16 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 07:09:55 AM

The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.

Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!