Lunar Danger! James and Ichi are the only ones?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 06:34:48 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

What, the photoshopped picture that shows the moon moving infront of the sun?

 

Quote from: Lorddave on May 20, 2010, 07:07:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 06:34:48 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

What, the photoshopped picture that shows the moon moving infront of the sun?

 

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 07:39:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 07:39:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.

The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2010, 08:15:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 07:39:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.

The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.

Do you have a link to it?  I don't seem to remember that one.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 08:23:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2010, 08:15:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 07:39:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.

The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.

Do you have a link to it?  I don't seem to remember that one.

I might take a look around for it tomorrow after work.  It's almost bedtime now and I don't know which thread it's in.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2010, 08:27:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 08:23:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2010, 08:15:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 07:39:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped

I'm not sure what image you're talking about.

I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.

The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.

Do you have a link to it?  I don't seem to remember that one.

I might take a look around for it tomorrow after work.  It's almost bedtime now and I don't know which thread it's in.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.

Resisting the urge to move this to Monster Fail...
More of a Redundancy Win, I suppose.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 08:03:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2010, 05:05:22 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 19, 2010, 06:53:27 AM

The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.

Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis).  Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.

And somehow I think we've missed the fact that thicken collenchyma is not a sign of death or harm,
/thread

Somehow you missed the fact that excess collenchyma is. /thread.

No one here is missing or deliberately ignoring the obvious more than you are!

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

I still utterly fail to understand why you argue so strongly for points of view that, by your own admission, you don't really believe yourself.  Is it that you feel so sorry for the plight of the "underdogs" that you feel obliged to comfort and support them even when you know they are wrong?  How is it a kindness to encourage the deluded to retain their delusions?  Perhaps it isn't kindness on your part, but utter contempt for them!

I will grant the possibility, though, that you think most of them are not really as deluded as they pretend to be, and that you are therefore not causing any harm by joining them in their silly little game.

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 06:34:48 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.

I'm not saying they are.  buka was asking for a picture and I merely pointed out that one has been provided.

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes.

Please Read Earth Not a Globe. A link is provided in the FAQ.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 21, 2010, 02:46:41 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.

So basically you can't produce one because it doesn't exisit,thanks.
Also,due to the light pollution in New york you can't see much in the nightsky anyway.

To update this:  I searched James' posts and cannot find the picture to which I alluded; I can't say for sure (I suppose it's possible I missed it) but it looks like James removed it, making me wonder if perhaps it was a fake after all.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack Ichimaru Gin and James than they do your own eyes.

Fixed. We can't believe the evidence of our own eyes with the antimoon since our eyes appear to be unable to identify it.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes.

Now, now James.  That's not a nice thing to say about Dr. Birley.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 21, 2010, 02:46:41 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.

Since the Anti-moon is Transparent to starlight and black, how does one find it?

Quote from: James on May 21, 2010, 05:21:27 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 21, 2010, 02:46:41 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.

Since the Anti-moon is Transparent to starlight and black, how does one find it?

But wouldnt trusting your eyes mean that air is infact not there and that space is blue during the day?

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2010, 06:34:48 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on May 20, 2010, 05:23:54 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.

He's already posted a picture.  Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.

I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.

I'd be happy with even a questionable photo. If one can be supplied Im sure the photographer can tell us when it was taken and so we can verify it.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 21, 2010, 02:46:41 PM

Quote from: James on May 20, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Quote from: buka001 on May 20, 2010, 03:31:24 AM

MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.

It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?

Third Party source

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.

Hypocrite.  People like you, for example, "Think it's too expppeeennssive or inconveennieeentt to buy/rent/borrow/steal? a GPS...", or that you won't even bother watching a ship sinking into the horizon with your own eyes.  Both of those are things you can do with under $10 in your pocket. 

There is no hope for you.

I have uncovered further evidence that moonlight is harmful.

In the song "Dance of Death" by Iron Maiden, the narrator states that he was "enjoying the bright moonlight", after which he hallucinates a group of dead people and spends the evening with them.

We can therefore conclude that moonlight causes hallucinations.

I have uncovered further evidence that moonlight is harmful.

In the song "Dance of Death" by Iron Maiden, the narrator states that he was "enjoying the bright moonlight", after which he hallucinates a group of dead people and spends the evening with them.

We can therefore conclude that moonlight causes hallucinations.

Brother Disarray this is another excellent and insightful post. I will be conducting my own experiments forthwith regarding the nature of the subject which you have just pertained towards insofar as, but I have no doubt that the results will be positive and FET will at last be vindicated. I look forward to reading more of your research valde nunc.

My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!

My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!

When will you get started then?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 11:26:14 AM

My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!

When will you get started then?

I know none of you actually have read my experiment (obvious from the many threads littered throughout the fora) so please at least try to!

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 01:47:00 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 11:26:14 AM

My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!

When will you get started then?

I know none of you actually have read my experiment (obvious from the many threads littered throughout the fora) so please at least try to!

Oh you know full well I read it.  I've commented on it so many times.

While your methods are questionable to some extent, the big issue isn't that, it's your conclusions.  Since you only show an increase in the quantity of a specific cell and you don't show any actual damage, the only conclusion is that moonlight alone promotes the production of this cell.  It can not be used to denote any harmful effects of moonlight as there was no damage done.

I agree; you're essentially saying "Moonlight does SOMETHING to the plants, which MUST mean it's harmful."