The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Thermal Detonator on April 25, 2010, 02:13:47 PM
-
The concept of lunar libration proves that the Moon is not a flat metal disc, as some flat guys believe. When confronted with images showing this effect, the standard flat response is to say "that's an animated computer representation, not a real photo".
Well here's some photos showing the effect, taken by me from my back garden. I am of course still aware that the flat guys don't accept photos as evidence of anything, however now they can no longer say the only thing we show of libration is a computer animation.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/libration1.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/libration2.jpg)
These images show the Moon taken firstly on 29th January this year, and secondly on 24th April this year. The red arrow shows the position of the crater Endymion.
Note how much closer this crater is to the edge of the Moon in the first picture than it is in the second. This is because the second picture depicts the Moon tlited southwards, so we get a better view of its northern side.
These pictures were taken with exactly the same camera, from the same location, and are at the same magnification. Resolution of the image is roughly 40km per pixel (these have been blown up 200% to make it easier to see though.)
-
I didn't think most FEers thought the moon was flat. I thought they saw pretty much everything in the Universe as round except the Earth.
-
I didn't think most FEers thought the moon was flat. I thought they saw pretty much everything in the Universe as round except the Earth.
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east. That's a physical impossibility if it's only 3000 miles away. Libration proves it cannot be flat, as Mad James (and therefore probably Itchy) believe.
-
I didn't think most FEers thought the moon was flat. I thought they saw pretty much everything in the Universe as round except the Earth.
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east. That's a physical impossibility if it's only 3000 miles away. Libration proves it cannot be flat, as Mad James (and therefore probably Itchy) believe.
You mean Moon.
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
As for the Moon, the current prevailing scientific view is that Lunar biomass migrates from location to location on the underside of the Moon on a seasonal basis, possibly in search of food or because of mating habits. Since man has never been to the Moon, it is difficult to know for sure.
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
As for the Moon, the current prevailing scientific view is that Lunar biomass migrates from location to location on the underside of the Moon on a seasonal basis, possibly in search of food or because of mating habits. Since man has never been to the Moon, it is difficult to know for sure.
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
As for the Moon, the current prevailing scientific view is that Lunar biomass migrates from location to location on the underside of the Moon on a seasonal basis, possibly in search of food or because of mating habits. Since man has never been to the Moon, it is difficult to know for sure.
....
The moon is alive...
And what does it mate with? Has it shown any behaviors associated with life? What does it eat? Why haven't we noticed any kind of growth? What about waste?
Come now, you really need to brush up on your definition of life.
-
The Moon mates with itself. It has shown bioluminescence, a trait which it shares with many terrestrial life forms.
-
The Moon mates with itself. It has shown bioluminescence, a trait which it shares with many terrestrial life forms.
That's not bioluminescence! It's light from the sun reflecting off of the Earth. Also, for reference, here's a picture of an island 32 miles wide as seen from a distance of 3000 miles. How well can you see it? I've circled the island and the altitude in red.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/32mileswide.jpg)
-
That's not bioluminescence! It's light from the sun reflecting off of the Earth. Also, for reference, here's a picture of an island 32 miles wide as seen from a distance of 3000 miles. How well can you see it? I've circled the island and the altitude in red.
The Moon does not reflect the Sun's light, that is preposterous. They are both discs, there is no conceivable configuration of Heavenly bodies which would allows this kind of reflection to occur. The Moon emits her own light, as everybody knows and has been proven by direct experiment.
Clearly the image you posted is a poor computer representation of a globularist's fantasies. I don't know what planet you are one, but perhaps it's not Earth! Not the same one I'm on anyway.
-
That's not bioluminescence! It's light from the sun reflecting off of the Earth. Also, for reference, here's a picture of an island 32 miles wide as seen from a distance of 3000 miles. How well can you see it? I've circled the island and the altitude in red.
The Moon does not reflect the Sun's light, that is preposterous. They are both discs, there is no conceivable configuration of Heavenly bodies which would allows this kind of reflection to occur. The Moon emits her own light, as everybody knows and has been proven by direct experiment.
Clearly the image you posted is a poor computer representation of a globularist's fantasies. I don't know what planet you are one, but perhaps it's not Earth! Not the same one I'm on anyway.
1. Now you're just being an ass.
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
4. I'm on Earth, but I'm not under the same delusions you are.
5. Here's a model that works just fine.
http://witchfulthinking.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/moon_phases_diagram1.jpg
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
I did not change any subjects. You told me you never said that the Moon reflected the Sun's light, and you would have been right in that regard.
I regret to inform you that the vast majority of academic materials are not freely available on some website. Perhaps you can negotiate access to your local library or to a university campus?
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
I did not change any subjects. You told me you never said that the Moon reflected the Sun's light, and you would have been right in that regard.
I regret to inform you that the vast majority of academic materials are not freely available on some website. Perhaps you can negotiate access to your local library or to a university campus?
I figured, since the validity of the claims made by your FAQ come into question so often, you would have the evidence on hand.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
I did not change any subjects. You told me you never said that the Moon reflected the Sun's light, and you would have been right in that regard.
I regret to inform you that the vast majority of academic materials are not freely available on some website. Perhaps you can negotiate access to your local library or to a university campus?
I figured, since the validity of the claims made by your FAQ come into question so often, you would have the evidence on hand.
I do, it's in the two published works which I have cited. If you like I can describe the experiments to you?
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
I did not change any subjects. You told me you never said that the Moon reflected the Sun's light, and you would have been right in that regard.
I regret to inform you that the vast majority of academic materials are not freely available on some website. Perhaps you can negotiate access to your local library or to a university campus?
I figured, since the validity of the claims made by your FAQ come into question so often, you would have the evidence on hand.
I do, it's in the two published works which I have cited. If you like I can describe the experiments to you?
I found the part in "Earth Not A Globe".
produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---
"If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair's breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment." 1
"This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon." 2
"The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied
in no way proves that the moon emits it's own light source. Only that light from the moon produces no heat.
Try again.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
I love how you change the subjects. I corrected you on my original statement. I never said the moon does not reflect the sun's light. I said the Earth reflects the sun's light onto the moon. I'd like to read your evidence, but you forgot the links.
I did not change any subjects. You told me you never said that the Moon reflected the Sun's light, and you would have been right in that regard.
I regret to inform you that the vast majority of academic materials are not freely available on some website. Perhaps you can negotiate access to your local library or to a university campus?
I figured, since the validity of the claims made by your FAQ come into question so often, you would have the evidence on hand.
I do, it's in the two published works which I have cited. If you like I can describe the experiments to you?
I would suggest making a post in the Wiki about the topic and just linking to it whenever the subject comes up.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
Yes I have.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
Yes I have.
All you've done is shown that plants grow a stiffener when exposed only to moonlight. This tells us nothing about the makeup of moonlight or it's source.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
Yes I have.
All you've done is shown that plants grow a stiffener when exposed only to moonlight. This tells us nothing about the makeup of moonlight or it's source.
The light is therefore of different character
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
Yes I have.
All you've done is shown that plants grow a stiffener when exposed only to moonlight. This tells us nothing about the makeup of moonlight or it's source.
The light is therefore of different character
Let me ask you this:
If I shined a light off a wall, would that light be of a different character than the light coming from the flashlight?
-
No. Where's the plant data?
-
No. Where's the plant data?
Plant data is irrelevant in this instance since I'm just asking if light changes properties by reflection.
And, of course, you'd be wrong.
The light coming off the wall will not be the same wavelength of the original source since the wall absorbs the light and reflects only a specific range of the light back. This is why we see color. Things that reflect red wavelengths appear red.
Thus, I submit that you can not determine that the moon's light is different than the sun by your method because their properties would not be the same to a plant at night.
Try this:
Bounce sunlight off a wall and see if a plant reacts to it.
-
Absorption and color has nothing to do with my experiment.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
no you dont you are just confused about what it is your doing and further confused about the results
-
Collenchyma grew in moonlight light only regardless of time or intensity. What isn't there to get?
Sunlight and lamp plants were fine.
-
Absorption and color has nothing to do with my experiment.
You are claiming your experiment shows that plants react differently when they try to absorb moonlight only.
You didn't factor in day/night cycles. You only had it going for 7 days for reasons not of your own doing. You also failed to factor in that the moonlight doesn't have the same properties, intensity, or EM range as sunlight. For example: There's no IR coming from the moon. No UV either. Yet there is from the sun.
In fact, I submit that the sun is harmful to you because if you stand in it, you get sunburned. No one has recorded being burned by moonlight.
-
Yes I did. Please refer to the day vs. night chart statistics. Also, intensity was taken care of by using nightglo. Furthermore wavelengths aren't a factor because they do not cause mechanical stress
-
Yes I did. Please refer to the day vs. night chart statistics. Also, intensity was taken care of by using nightglo. Furthermore wavelengths aren't a factor because they do not cause mechanical stress
you are omitting the fact that everything your wasting your time on is explainable by reflected sunlight off of the moon
-
Yes I did. Please refer to the day vs. night chart statistics. Also, intensity was taken care of by using nightglo. Furthermore wavelengths aren't a factor because they do not cause mechanical stress
you are omitting the fact that everything your wasting your time on is explainable by reflected sunlight off of the moon
Nope. Please do keep up.
-
Yes I did. Please refer to the day vs. night chart statistics. Also, intensity was taken care of by using nightglo. Furthermore wavelengths aren't a factor because they do not cause mechanical stress
Well there's your problem:
Light is nothing more than a wavelength. How could it result in mechanical stress? Therefore, the moonlight could not be the factor as moonlight is nothing more than wavelengths and by your own definition, they can't cause mechanical stress.
This also fails to account for why sunlight counteracts the mechanical stress of the moonlight.
I submit that moonlight can't be a factor in the results because the results of the experiment point to a mechanical stress, by your own admission, and the sun can't create anti-mechanical stress.
-
Well here's your problem,
you think light is nothing more than a wavelength.
I submit your argument is invalid.
edit:going to bed. goodnight <3
-
Well here's your problem,
you think light is nothing more than a wavelength.
I submit your argument is invalid.
Yep. That's because it is. Well that an a photon, but it depends on what it's doing that determines how it behaves.
How do I know light behaves like a wave?
It has wave interference patterns that match those of other wave forms.
-
I have strong experimental evidence the moon's light is independent of the Sun's light.
No you don't.
Actually, I do.
I've read your studies:
No you don't.
Yes I have.
^^ Arguing like five year-olds. This does little to make me support either of you.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
Haha, the 1800s... when scientific research ended because everything that could be discovered had been discovered, right?
This guy must be a troll. Nobody is as stupid as this in real life.
-
2. I didn't say the moon reflected the sun's light, I said the Earth reflected the sun's light.
So we are in agreement that the Moon does not reflect the Sun's light?
3. I'd like to see your source for the claim that moon emits it's own light.
I have two sources, the experiments of Dr Lardner, and the experiments of Charles Dickens.
Dr Lardner's experiments were published in Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly, page 115.
Dickens' experiments were published in his periodical All the Year Round, and are cited in Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 144.
Haha, the 1800s... when scientific research ended because everything that could be discovered had been discovered, right?
This guy must be a troll. Nobody is as stupid as this in real life.
If you'd like some more recent experimental data which straightforwardly corroborates Rowbotham's claims about moonlight, try:
Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
Gee, don't you hate it when Flat Earthers cite those terribly outdated sources in their arguments? ::)
-
Ah yes, animals being affected by a full moon proves the Earth is flat.
-
Gee, don't you hate it when Flat Earthers cite those terribly outdated sources in their arguments? ::)
Gee, don't you hate it when Round Earthers post up pictures that prove the Moon cannot be a flat disc? ::)
All your other arguments are as worthless as monkey piss, James. You can't explain libration with a flat disc. The flat disc has got to go.
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
Obviously a typo, I meant MOON you cretinous troll.
-
If you'd like some more recent experimental data which straightforwardly corroborates Rowbotham's claims about moonlight, try:
Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
Gee, don't you hate it when Flat Earthers cite those terribly outdated sources in their arguments? ::)
I'm sorry, but which of those sources corroborates Dickens' claim that moonlight lowers temperatures?
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
So you say, but if you guys have taught me anything here it's that I should doubt everything anyone here says.
And frankly, lying is just way too easy. I could very easily make a new account, post a "scientific paper" on how the Earth is flat, and you'd all think I was brilliant, parade it around like it was the new bible, and not bother to question that I may not be one of you.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
I ask again, you think it is a complete coincidence that whatever method you assign to the visual appearance of the Moon EXACTLY resembles what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time?
Yes or no will do.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
So you say, but if you guys have taught me anything here it's that I should doubt everything anyone here says.
And frankly, lying is just way too easy. I could very easily make a new account, post a "scientific paper" on how the Earth is flat, and you'd all think I was brilliant, parade it around like it was the new bible, and not bother to question that I may not be one of you.
Are you saying that I made an account, faked it for four years, created a flat earth group and am beginning another one, travelled to the antarctic, spent most of my free time the span of those 4 years working on Flat Earth related research for no possible or reasonable motive?
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
-
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
you didnt actually just say this did you?
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
I ask again, you think it is a complete coincidence that whatever method you assign to the visual appearance of the Moon EXACTLY resembles what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time?
Yes or no will do.
Do you honestly believe it just a coincidence that in your model the moon is a 400th the size of the sun and 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, rotating at a rate of 400km a day with the earth only rotating 100 times less than that? And the moon has a rotational speed of 1% of an earth day? That the sun can fit 109 earths around it, and at the same time have 109 earths between it and the earth? A moon that was supposedly made from the earth, jumped up to the perfect spot for eclispes to exist, and sat there?
Yeah ok. I guess the flat earth model is more coincidental. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
You're quite right John, although I'm fairly convinced there is actually life moving around up there as well as weather - probably a combination of the two. The redness of blood rain is in all likelyhood dependent on the Red Moon phenomenon described by Lardner.
-
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
you didnt actually just say this did you?
Yes...... he did. And it has made my day.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
So you say, but if you guys have taught me anything here it's that I should doubt everything anyone here says.
And frankly, lying is just way too easy. I could very easily make a new account, post a "scientific paper" on how the Earth is flat, and you'd all think I was brilliant, parade it around like it was the new bible, and not bother to question that I may not be one of you.
Are you saying that I made an account, faked it for four years, created a flat earth group and am beginning another one, travelled to the antarctic, spent most of my free time the span of those 4 years working on Flat Earth related research for no possible or reasonable motive?
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
How do I know you went to Antarctica? How do I know you did any research? It would take me about 2 days to make up a bunch of figures.
And yes, you could. You believe in the Conspiracy so why can't I believe you're not trustworthy?
-
Do you honestly believe it just a coincidence that in your model the moon is a 400th the size of the sun and 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, rotating at a rate of 400km a day with the earth only rotating 100 times less than that? And the moon has a rotational speed of 1% of an earth day? That the sun can fit 109 earths around it, and at the same time have 109 earths between it and the earth? A moon that was supposedly made from the earth, jumped up to the perfect spot for eclispes to exist, and sat there?
Yeah ok. I guess the flat earth model is more coincidental. Thanks for clearing that up.
A lot of things you're speaking of there (the rotational speeds) are not coincidences, they are the effect of long term gravitational resonance. Many examples of this exist throughout the solar system, not that you believe in the solar system. Plus eclipses are not the "perfect" coincidence that they are often described as. Sometimes an annular eclipse occurs and the Moon appears too small to block out the Sun. If the Moon were 1/3rd larger again we'd no longer get annular eclipses but the total eclipses we see would look pretty similar, but with totality lasting longer. You'd still easily see the corona of the Sun stretching out behind the Moon. The distance of the Moon is also increasing gradually so no, it didn't "jump up" to where it is today. One day we will have no more total eclipses.
You're a joke.
And still you don't answer my question directly.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
So you say, but if you guys have taught me anything here it's that I should doubt everything anyone here says.
And frankly, lying is just way too easy. I could very easily make a new account, post a "scientific paper" on how the Earth is flat, and you'd all think I was brilliant, parade it around like it was the new bible, and not bother to question that I may not be one of you.
Are you saying that I made an account, faked it for four years, created a flat earth group and am beginning another one, travelled to the antarctic, spent most of my free time the span of those 4 years working on Flat Earth related research for no possible or reasonable motive?
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
How do I know you went to Antarctica? How do I know you did any research? It would take me about 2 days to make up a bunch of figures.
And yes, you could. You believe in the Conspiracy so why can't I believe you're not trustworthy?
I don't believe in the conspiracy.
I posted on these forums from the boat which any moderator other than myself can verify by the ip posted. I also sent a postcard to a Round Earth member on this forum from the tip of South America to prove I had made the trip. If Gayer reads this thread, I'm sure she will verify this.
You can review my 4 years of posts if you don't believe I've been working on FET 4 years while here, though I suppose without visiting me in knoxville to see my notebooks you won't believe me that I worked extensively before that.
That still leaves no motive at all; I also get prejudiced about my beliefs daily and they could very well effect my ability to procure work. I don't see why someone would go as far as I do just to be prejudiced in my non-flat earth life.
Also the flat earth groups, the BBC interview, personally ensuring the online presence continued during 2008, etc.
But you are free to believe what you wish. All I'm saying is that it would ludicrous to assume I did this much work for what amounts in your mind to a joke.
That said, lets keep this on topic. If you'd like I'll split this topic for further conversation on the matter.
-
Give it up guys.
You can't stop James from saying what he'll say because he's saying it for the laughs. He's only riling you up then laughing at his computer as he reads how frustrated you are.
If we were to ignore him, he'd go away.
Thats not true, many of us believe in biolum life on the moon.
So you say, but if you guys have taught me anything here it's that I should doubt everything anyone here says.
And frankly, lying is just way too easy. I could very easily make a new account, post a "scientific paper" on how the Earth is flat, and you'd all think I was brilliant, parade it around like it was the new bible, and not bother to question that I may not be one of you.
Are you saying that I made an account, faked it for four years, created a flat earth group and am beginning another one, travelled to the antarctic, spent most of my free time the span of those 4 years working on Flat Earth related research for no possible or reasonable motive?
The mental gymnastics you round earthers do when something conflicts with your belief is amazing.
How do I know you went to Antarctica? How do I know you did any research? It would take me about 2 days to make up a bunch of figures.
And yes, you could. You believe in the Conspiracy so why can't I believe you're not trustworthy?
I don't believe in the conspiracy.
I posted on these forums from the boat which any moderator other than myself can verify by the ip posted. I also sent a postcard to a Round Earth member on this forum from the tip of South America to prove I had made the trip. If Gayer reads this thread, I'm sure she will verify this.
You can review my 4 years of posts if you don't believe I've been working on FET 4 years while here, though I suppose without visiting me in knoxville to see my notebooks you won't believe me that I worked extensively before that.
That still leaves no motive at all; I also get prejudiced about my beliefs daily and they could very well effect my ability to procure work. I don't see why someone would go as far as I do just to be prejudiced in my non-flat earth life.
Also the flat earth groups, the BBC interview, personally ensuring the online presence continued during 2008, etc.
But you are free to believe what you wish. All I'm saying is that it would ludicrous to assume I did this much work for what amounts in your mind to a joke.
That said, lets keep this on topic. If you'd like I'll split this topic for further conversation on the matter.
Very well, I'll drop the matter to stay on target.
I'm just annoyed that nothing seems to have any impact here. No data, no evidence, nothing. It's rather annoying.
-
And still Davis does not answer my question directly.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
-
I don't believe in the conspiracy.
So hw bot dem rockits
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
I asked you first! Nanny nanny boo boo!
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
I asked you first! Nanny nanny boo boo!
Keep contentless posting out of the forums.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
I asked you first! Nanny nanny boo boo!
Keep contentless posting out of the forums.
Actually, his post does have content. You stated that you would answer him when he answered you However, his question was asked first, which he pointed out. The "Nanny nanny boo boo" was just for effect. His point still stands, you have yet to answer his question.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
I asked you first! Nanny nanny boo boo!
Keep contentless posting out of the forums.
Actually, his post does have content. You stated that you would answer him when he answered you However, his question was asked first, which he pointed out. The "Nanny nanny boo boo" was just for effect. His point still stands, you have yet to answer his question.
He either didn't ask me a question or is using multi accounts and needs a longer ban. I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Given what he says means nothing, it is off topic and contentless.
Keep it on topic, this is a warning.
-
^^ Come on John Davis. You know you all are just arguing like little kids. And contentless posts? So I guess you saying, "I'll answer you when you answer me." gets a lot done in the way of content?
Banning me for pointing out your childishness in debating with the other user will just make you look even more childish.
-
I don't believe in the conspiracy.
So hw bot dem rockits
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2076436460_6478463ff7_o.jpg)
This man is either part of the conspiracy, or the moon is not a flat disc.
Which is it?
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz.
When have I ever stated non-belief in FET?
You don't have to say it. We can all tell, the way a courtroom can tell a murderer is lying if he is really unconvincing.
You claimed I said I do it for the "lulz".
Substantiate this claim. Unless you just spout shit you can't back up.
I'll answer you when you answer me.
I asked you first! Nanny nanny boo boo!
Keep contentless posting out of the forums.
Actually, his post does have content. You stated that you would answer him when he answered you However, his question was asked first, which he pointed out. The "Nanny nanny boo boo" was just for effect. His point still stands, you have yet to answer his question.
He either didn't ask me a question or is using multi accounts and needs a longer ban. I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Given what he says means nothing, it is off topic and contentless.
Keep it on topic, this is a warning.
Your kidding, right? Are people really being bant for this?
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2076436460_6478463ff7_o.jpg)
This man is either part of the conspiracy, or the moon is not a flat disc.
Which is it?
;D ;D It looks like a huge weather system and bio-luminiscent lifeforms to me ;D ;D
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3895197582_cd094f49c0_o.jpg)
Another image. The moon as a flat disc MUST be thrown out. Period.
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3895197582_cd094f49c0_o.jpg)
Another image. The moon as a flat disc MUST be thrown out. Period.
This is obviously a fake image. And even if it was real, I don't see how this would prove anything. :P
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2076436460_6478463ff7_o.jpg)
This man is either part of the conspiracy, or the moon is not a flat disc.
Which is it?
;D ;D It looks like a huge weather system and bio-luminiscent lifeforms to me ;D ;D
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
Where do you see the weather system? I see only lots and lots of craters iluminated by a source of light. How do you know so "clearly" that the light from the moon is due to life forms?
how do you know that it's harmful? And don't pint me out to the royal navy warning, because every single day millions of people are exposed to moonlight and nothing happens. Where is your evidence?
how do you know that it expels bio-matter? And if you are going to tell me about bloodrains and that sort of things, prove me that those "things" come from the moon, please. How do you know?
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please? Its kinda hard to follow. Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself? Why would it evolve that way? ???
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please? Its kinda hard to follow. Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself? Why would it evolve that way? ???
Sorry, my fault.
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
-
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
Ahh... So now we're talking about an entire lunar ecosystem. Just out of curiosity, would this be similar to the ecosystem that H.G. Welles proposed in his novel The First Men in the Moon?
-
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
Ahh... So now we're talking about an entire lunar ecosystem.
Now we're talking about a serious nutcase. This guy needs his head checked.
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please? Its kinda hard to follow. Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself? Why would it evolve that way? ???
Sorry, my fault.
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
How do you know all these things?
Please, answer my other questions too. I'm higly interested.
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please? Its kinda hard to follow. Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself? Why would it evolve that way? ???
Sorry, my fault.
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
How do you know all these things?
Please, answer my other questions too. I'm higly interested.
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
BLOOD RAIN! THERE'S NO EXPLANATION SO IT COMES FROM
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
All terrestrial sources have been ruled out. As Sherlock Holmes would say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
All terrestrial sources have been ruled out. As Sherlock Holmes would say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Holmes is also a fictional character. Obviously not a scientist or one who researches natural phenomenon. Most certainly not someone who makes up shit about bio-luminescent life on other celestial bodies with no research or evidence either.
-
It is not highly improbable that edible matter falls from the Moon - it has been known since the dawn of civilization that the Moon is alive, and simpletons have long thought that the Moon is made of edible cheese (this is a common myth, but as Aristotle said there is a grain of truth in every belief). "Cheese" is an analogue for bioluminescent lunar wildlife for those who can't grasp that concept.
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
All terrestrial sources have been ruled out. As Sherlock Holmes would say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
And how do you know that it comes from the moon and not, let's say, the sun??
-
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
All terrestrial sources have been ruled out. As Sherlock Holmes would say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
And how do you know that it comes from the moon and not, let's say, the sun??
The Sun is not red or white. Manna/ambrosia is white, blood rain is red. The Moon, at different times, is both white and red.
-
The Sun is not red or white. Manna/ambrosia is white, blood rain is red. The Moon, at different times, is both white and red.
Therefore it must come from the moon? Despite all the photos that clearly shows a sphere-like surface with thousands of craters? I think that it's more probable that the mana/blood comes from other celestial bodies. well, we have a look to the moon and we do see craters arranged in a sphere-distribution, right? Maybe the red shining is from other cause we don't yet know. Do you have any other reasoning to back this idea?
PD: excuse my english.
-
The Sun is not red or white. Manna/ambrosia is white, blood rain is red. The Moon, at different times, is both white and red.
Therefore it must come from the moon? Despite all the photos that clearly shows a sphere-like surface with thousands of craters? I think that it's more probable that the mana/blood comes from other celestial bodies. well, we have a look to the moon and we do see craters arranged in a sphere-distribution, right? Maybe the red shining is from other cause we don't yet know. Do you have any other reasoning to back this idea?
PD: excuse my english.
If you had one bright yellow cake, one cake which was partly white and partly red, and one cake which emitted no light, and somebody offered you a red piece of cake and a white piece of cake and asked you which cake they came from, which one would you choose?
-
If you had one bright yellow cake, one cake which was partly white and partly red, and one cake which emitted no light, and somebody offered you a red piece of cake and a white piece of cake and asked you which cake they came from, which one would you choose?
Wow, you are taking the asummption that the piece of cake comes from one of the three cakes listed. Why can't the blood or mana come from the stars and/or other unknown sources? the idea of "Blood is red. Moon is seen red during an eclipse, therefore blood comes from moon" isn't very conclusive, specially when craters and sphere-like pattern is seen trough telescope. Is that all you have?
-
If you had one bright yellow cake, one cake which was partly white and partly red, and one cake which emitted no light, and somebody offered you a red piece of cake and a white piece of cake and asked you which cake they came from, which one would you choose?
Wow, you are taking the asummption that the piece of cake comes from one of the three cakes listed. Why can't the blood or mana come from the stars and/or other unknown sources? the idea of "Blood is red. Moon is seen red during an eclipse, therefore blood comes from moon" isn't very conclusive, specially when craters and sphere-like pattern is seen trough telescope. Is that all you have?
James is either a really good troll or insane.
In either case, arguing against him is like arguing against a brick wall. Nothing will make a difference. His mind has it's own reality and that reality is unalterable. And in that reality, the Moon is a living creature (or living creatures live on it), has weather patterns, and rains blood/mana.
Though that begs the question:
What does the moon eat?
-
James is quite right.
I hope to draw a correlation also with heavenly events, aetheric eddies, and certain types of fortreana. It is looking promising so far and I will release information in an appropriate manner when it is available.
-
James is quite right.
I hope to draw a correlation also with heavenly events, aetheric eddies, and certain types of fortreana. It is looking promising so far and I will release information in an appropriate manner when it is available.
How do you test the fortreana when it's an extremely rare and unpredictable event?
-
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.
Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon. The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please? Its kinda hard to follow. Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself? Why would it evolve that way? ???
Sorry, my fault.
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter. This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."
A defense mechanism. Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.
How do you know all these things?
Please, answer my other questions too. I'm higly interested.
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc. It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.
It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.
OK, I'm not finding anything on this blood rain/manna. Care to provide a link, preferably to some photographic/video evidence?
-
Read: The Book of the Damned, Charles Fort
-
Read: The Book of the Damned, Charles Fort
No, I mean scientific data.
-
Read: The Book of the Damned, Charles Fort
No, I mean scientific data.
Are you saying it is not scientific or does not quote scientific sources?
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
As for the Moon, the current prevailing scientific view is that Lunar biomass migrates from location to location on the underside of the Moon on a seasonal basis, possibly in search of food or because of mating habits. Since man has never been to the Moon, it is difficult to know for sure.
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
Haha, I love this guy 'Silver'. I completely agree.
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
Correct.
As for the Moon, the current prevailing scientific view is that Lunar biomass migrates from location to location on the underside of the Moon on a seasonal basis, possibly in search of food or because of mating habits. Since man has never been to the Moon, it is difficult to know for sure.
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
Haha, I love this guy 'Silver'. I completely agree.
I'd hardly call it out of anyones ass. Its what any logic sound minded entity would think when confronted with the true facts.
-
I'd hardly call it out of anyones ass. Its what any logic sound minded entity would think when confronted with the true facts.
Yeah. "Light is shining on a side of it" is so boring. It obviously must be an incredibly bright biomass travelling across the surface of the moon, that cold vacuum that it is, in search or food or perhaps a mate. PERFECT SENSE.
-
I'd hardly call it out of anyones ass. Its what any logic sound minded entity would think when confronted with the true facts.
Its hilarious how you think your advanced use of sentence structure technique, grammar, and vocabulary make you correct.
Obviously you paid attention in English class.
As for Geography/History class, well, maybe you fell asleep during the part about how the Earth has been proven spherical for quite some time now.
-
I'd hardly call it out of anyones ass. Its what any logic sound minded entity would think when confronted with the true facts.
Its hilarious how you think your advanced use of sentence structure technique, grammar, and vocabulary make you correct.
Obviously you paid attention in English class.
As for Geography/History class, well, maybe you fell asleep during the part about how the Earth has been proven spherical for quite some time now.
I think nothing of my sentence structure.
The Earth cannot be proven flat or round; evidence can only be shown for either side.
-
Don't even pretend like there's any evidence that would lead you to believe the Earth is round. You've already come to a conclusion, and reject outright any and all evidence contrary to your presupposition.
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
Also:
3) How does the lunar excretion reach Earth? Wouldn't the UA keep anything from falling down to us?
4) Is the moon alive or is there just living things on the moon?
4a) If the moon is alive, how do you know if you haven't seen it reproduce?
-
The Earth cannot be proven flat or round; evidence can only be shown for either side.
But the Moon can. We can see it. We can see it is round because it looks exactly like a round object lit from the direction of the Sun. Though you think this is coincidence. The movements of the Magic Biomass and the Magic Same Every Time Weather System just happen to simulate this EXACTLY. Isn't that lucky?
-
Women have periods every month. All kinds of biological phenomona occur with amazing regularity. it's far from improbable.
-
Women have periods every month. All kinds of biological phenomona occur with amazing regularity. it's far from improbable.
Wouldn't the moon have to absorb more energy than it lets out (via light and whatever else you guys think it does)? And since the sun is a spotlight it can't provide the energy. So...
Where does the moon get it's energy?
-
Read: The Book of the Damned, Charles Fort
No, I mean scientific data.
Are you saying it is not scientific or does not quote scientific sources?
Let me rephrase. Since Google can come up with nothing at all regarding blood rain/manna, could you please provide some recent scientific data regarding this topic. You guys always point to seriously outdated material.
-
The "blood rain" thing comes from algae coloring rainwater. It's not all red, by the way, and has been noted to fall in green, black, and myriad other colors. The "manna" thing seems to be a biblical reference as far as I can tell.
-
Rainwater comes from the ocean, algae can be green black and red (and rarely others, most commonly red and green.)
I can tell you (I have photos of my fish tank with the water sometimes turning green from the algae) that rainwater CAN have algae in it to turn red/etc. Hell, water spouts have caused it to rain FISH deep inland and it is recognized that waterspouts cause this, just as absorbed algae in moisture in clouds can cause it to rain red or green rainwater. Do fish come from the moon!?
-
Women have periods every month. All kinds of biological phenomona occur with amazing regularity. it's far from improbable.
No, it's very improbable when you're talking about weather and organism migration. Show me examples of weather precisely duplicating a previous pattern. Show me examples of organisms migrating across thousands of miles and then returning to the same exact spot within a ten metre accuracy at a precisely predictable date - not even salmon get that close.
If you want to invoke an analogy with periods, it's equivalent to every single woman's period being exactly regular as clockwork, never varying by so much as a day, and the amount of blood lost being exactly the same to the millilitre for a given day of the cycle, never varying.
That isn't how it is.
-
When have I talked about weather or migration? I remain to be convinced that Lunar cycles or eclipses are caused by either. As for periods, they are simply one example - the astounding regularity of some biological phenomona is well documented and a ridiculous point to debate against.
-
When have I talked about weather or migration? I remain to be convinced that Lunar cycles or eclipses are caused by either. As for periods, they are simply one example - the astounding regularity of some biological phenomona is well documented and a ridiculous point to debate against.
Since your post appeared to look exactly like a response to mine, that's when. Coincidence?
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
1) It falls (that is, the Earth rises to meet it).
2) It eats itself like an ouroboros.
3) How does the lunar excretion reach Earth? Wouldn't the UA keep anything from falling down to us?
4) Is the moon alive or is there just living things on the moon?
4a) If the moon is alive, how do you know if you haven't seen it reproduce?
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
4) Where does one end and the other begin?
4a) It reproduces with itself.
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
1) It falls (that is, the Earth rises to meet it).
2) It eats itself like an ouroboros.
3) How does the lunar excretion reach Earth? Wouldn't the UA keep anything from falling down to us?
4) Is the moon alive or is there just living things on the moon?
4a) If the moon is alive, how do you know if you haven't seen it reproduce?
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
4) Where does one end and the other begin?
4a) It reproduces with itself.
At what rate is the moon eating itself and how?
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
1) It falls (that is, the Earth rises to meet it).
2) It eats itself like an ouroboros.
3) How does the lunar excretion reach Earth? Wouldn't the UA keep anything from falling down to us?
4) Is the moon alive or is there just living things on the moon?
4a) If the moon is alive, how do you know if you haven't seen it reproduce?
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
4) Where does one end and the other begin?
4a) It reproduces with itself.
I'm still waiting for ANY scientific data that supports this. And if us telling you we "can see it plain as day" when referring to anything RE, you cannot use this line when trying to back up your own bullshit.
-
At what rate is the moon eating itself and how?
At a constant rate, with gusto.
-
If the moon is alive, and makes manna and blood rain...
1) How does it get from the moon to earth?
2) What does the moon eat?
1) It falls (that is, the Earth rises to meet it).
2) It eats itself like an ouroboros.
3) How does the lunar excretion reach Earth? Wouldn't the UA keep anything from falling down to us?
4) Is the moon alive or is there just living things on the moon?
4a) If the moon is alive, how do you know if you haven't seen it reproduce?
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
4) Where does one end and the other begin?
4a) It reproduces with itself.
I'm still waiting for ANY scientific data that supports this. And if us telling you we "can see it plain as day" when referring to anything RE, you cannot use this line when trying to back up your own bullshit.
I'm still waiting for ANY scientific data that supports this. And if us telling you we "can see it plain as day" when referring to anything RE, you cannot use this line when trying to back up your own bullshit.
-
When have I talked about weather or migration? I remain to be convinced that Lunar cycles or eclipses are caused by either. As for periods, they are simply one example - the astounding regularity of some biological phenomona is well documented and a ridiculous point to debate against.
Since your post appeared to look exactly like a response to mine, that's when. Coincidence?
I was responding to the bit about the Lunar biomass. If I had been responding to the bit about the 'weather cycle' theory, I would have mentioned a relevant example. This isn't difficult stuff.
-
What does the moon eat?
It eats itself like an ouroboros.
How does this make more sense than...
How could it turn me to stone?
It could look at you like Medusa.
...?
-
When have I talked about weather or migration? I remain to be convinced that Lunar cycles or eclipses are caused by either. As for periods, they are simply one example - the astounding regularity of some biological phenomona is well documented and a ridiculous point to debate against.
Since your post appeared to look exactly like a response to mine, that's when. Coincidence?
I was responding to the bit about the Lunar biomass. If I had been responding to the bit about the 'weather cycle' theory, I would have mentioned a relevant example. This isn't difficult stuff.
Perhaps if you had quoted the post about the Lunar biomass, he would not have misunderstood. Especially since your post follows immediately after his.
-
At what rate is the moon eating itself and how?
At a constant rate, with gusto.
Please explain how you know this, citing relevent observational data and measurements and a description of how the observations were conducted. In other words, prove you aren't making it up. Because I think you are.
Oh yeah, while you're at it, explain the difference in apparent position of Endymion crater as pointed out in the OP.
-
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.
Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?
Is the Moon shooting us?
-
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.
Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?
Is the Moon shooting us?
No. Obviously the moon is excreting on us. The "blood rain" is lunar urine and "mana" is lunar dung falling on us.
-
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.
Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?
Is the Moon shooting us?
No. Obviously the moon is excreting on us. The "blood rain" is lunar urine and "mana" is lunar dung falling on us.
But how can they overcome the force of the UA if the Moon cannot?
Something smaller and lighter should be easily influenced by the force of the UA and stay up for longer.
How come the Moon doesn't fall on us if it's excretions are?
-
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.
Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?
Is the Moon shooting us?
When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.
-
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.
Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.
Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?
Is the Moon shooting us?
When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.
What light illuminates the moon?
-
When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.
So the Earth is becoming more and more positive, while the sun and moon are somehow being bombarded with enough electrons to hold them up, grow incredibly negative? You realize the charge difference would create either sun/moon-to-Earth lightning or (if there's no medium to move through) they'd both act like gigantic magnets and attract each other?
-
At what rate is the moon eating itself and how?
At a constant rate, with gusto.
Please explain how you know this, citing relevent observational data and measurements and a description of how the observations were conducted. In other words, prove you aren't making it up. Because I think you are.
Oh yeah, while you're at it, explain the difference in apparent position of Endymion crater as pointed out in the OP.
-
When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.
James, just out of curiosity, have you ever "run the numbers" to calculate how much energy would be required to maintain the photoelectric suspension of the sun and/or moon?
-
Where does this light come from, and why is more light emitted from the Sun than shone towards it? Also still waiting for answer to my preivious question about the Moon "eating itself" and the original post also - explain crater movement.
-
My guess it that James feels that the moon's own bio-luminescence is supplies enough light to maintain the photoelectric suspension. However, I would be interested in seeing if he (or anyone) could calculate how much light would be required to generate the electron stream required to maintain the suspension.
-
My guess it that James feels that the moon's own bio-luminescence is supplies enough light to maintain the photoelectric suspension. However, I would be interested in seeing if he (or anyone) could calculate how much light would be required to generate the electron stream required to maintain the suspension.
So when it's new moon and the surface is not illuminated, the moon plummets down? If his theory is correct, the height of the moon above the ground would vary significantly.
Oh yeah, James will also tell us why we don't see perspective making the Flat Disc MoonTM look elliptical.
-
So when it's new moon and the surface is not illuminated, the moon plummets down? If his theory is correct, the height of the moon above the ground would vary significantly.
Not necessarily. When the moon is new, the surface of the moon is blocked by some sort of material excreted by the lunar biomass. Essentially, lunar clouds. The biomass is still radiating its bioluminescence (and therefore still producing the photoelectric effect), we just to see it as much.
-
What light illuminates the moon?
The Moon illuminates itself.
When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.
So the Earth is becoming more and more positive, while the sun and moon are somehow being bombarded with enough electrons to hold them up, grow incredibly negative? You realize the charge difference would create either sun/moon-to-Earth lightning or (if there's no medium to move through) they'd both act like gigantic magnets and attract each other?
You're forgetting the Earth's magnetic field.
Where does this light come from, and why is more light emitted from the Sun than shone towards it? Also still waiting for answer to my preivious question about the Moon "eating itself" and the original post also - explain crater movement.
The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.
My guess it that James feels that the moon's own bio-luminescence is supplies enough light to maintain the photoelectric suspension. However, I would be interested in seeing if he (or anyone) could calculate how much light would be required to generate the electron stream required to maintain the suspension.
So when it's new moon and the surface is not illuminated, the moon plummets down? If his theory is correct, the height of the moon above the ground would vary significantly.
Oh yeah, James will also tell us why we don't see perspective making the Flat Disc MoonTM look elliptical.
The atmolayer is a dome. When light enters it, it distorts the location of objects, just as most other non-vacuum media which light move through do.
-
My guess it that James feels that the moon's own bio-luminescence is supplies enough light to maintain the photoelectric suspension. However, I would be interested in seeing if he (or anyone) could calculate how much light would be required to generate the electron stream required to maintain the suspension.
Massice suspension is difficult to replicate on Earth, so there are unfortunately variables missing from an armchair calculation. If I were funded, I would be able to construct the apparatus necessary to perform the required tests.
-
Massice suspension is difficult to replicate on Earth, so there are unfortunately variables missing from an armchair calculation.
So you admit that you have no way of knowing if the lunar biomass can produce enough of the correct wavelength of light to generate enough of the photoelectric effect to cause the massice suspension that is observed. Thanks, I'm glad that we cleared that up.
If I were funded, I would be able to construct the apparatus necessary to perform the required tests.
Nice try, James. ;)
-
Still waiting for my answers on the Moon eating itself and the variance in Endymion's position.
-
The atmolayer is a dome. When light enters it, it distorts the location of objects, just as most other non-vacuum media which light move through do.
A dome, as in a physical object?
-
The atmolayer is a dome. When light enters it, it distorts the location of objects, just as most other non-vacuum media which light move through do.
A dome, as in a physical object?
Do you consider air nonphysical?
-
When observing the moon at dawn, when it's out, the lit part always points towards the Sun.
Conclusion:
The Sun affects what direction of the moon's facing is lit.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv
Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv
Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.
That is the animation several flat guys have dismissed as "computer generated" and thus claiming it doesn't prove libration, which is why I went out and took images which backed it up.
-
So the Earth is becoming more and more positive, while the sun and moon are somehow being bombarded with enough electrons to hold them up, grow incredibly negative? You realize the charge difference would create either sun/moon-to-Earth lightning or (if there's no medium to move through) they'd both act like gigantic magnets and attract each other?
You're forgetting the Earth's magnetic field.
No, you just avoided it. They'd be pulled closer and closer by magnetism thanks to their increasingly opposing charges until they entered your atmolayer thing, at which point the incredible charge difference would blast earth to hell with the biggest lightning anyone's ever observed.
-
Still waiting for my answers on the Moon eating itself and the variance in Endymion's position.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv
Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.
That is the animation several flat guys have dismissed as "computer generated" and thus claiming it doesn't prove libration, which is why I went out and took images which backed it up.
We all know flat guys are stupid, I assumed they did something like that, that lone skywatcher must be part of the conspiracy too!
How big is this conspiracy?
Sure people have the means to do all these things to cover up the shape, but only the conspiracy has the motive, nobody else has reasons to change evidence.
Why should they?
All they are doing is blocking their ears and screaming - they are the only people that they are making look stupid.
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
Was all just made up.
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
How do you know Manna exists if you have not seen it?
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
How do you know Manna exists if you have not seen it?
Did I claim that I hadn't seen it?
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
How do you know Manna exists if you have not seen it?
Did I claim that I hadn't seen it?
For goodness sake, stop playing riddles and word games James. You know perfectly well what the question means, you are just playing for time because you have no answers.
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
(http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/8425/manna.th.jpg) (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/manna.jpg/)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv
Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.
That is the animation several flat guys have dismissed as "computer generated" and thus claiming it doesn't prove libration, which is why I went out and took images which backed it up.
We all know flat guys are stupid, I assumed they did something like that, that lone skywatcher must be part of the conspiracy too!
How big is this conspiracy?
Sure people have the means to do all these things to cover up the shape, but only the conspiracy has the motive, nobody else has reasons to change evidence.
Why should they?
All they are doing is blocking their ears and screaming - they are the only people that they are making look stupid.
The conspiracy having motive is also debatable as I've addressed how the conspiracy itself would be so huge, complex, and all encompassing that the potential for any amount of profit is laughable.
-
If the moon's surface is made up of bioluminescent material, and that material sometimes falls from the moon to the earth, then it would seem simple to test that material to see if it is indeed bioluminescent and emits light at the specific wavelengths that we see. Has this test ever been performed, or was this just all made up?
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
Have you succeeded? If so, could you please post some pictures of this substance so we can verify it?
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
This seems to be the same thing that consists of all your arguments.
"It does exist, it is just too difficult and expensive for me to discover it. That and I would have to be exposed to the moonlight which will harm me. No, really, why else wouldn't sailors sleep on the decks of ships while sailing in wet, cold, and windy conditions? Ya know, besides the fact that sleeping inside the hull would protect them from the elements."
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
This seems to be the same thing that consists of all your arguments.
"It does exist, it is just too difficult and expensive for me to discover it. That and I would have to be exposed to the moonlight which will harm me. No, really, why else wouldn't sailors sleep on the decks of ships while sailing in wet, cold, and windy conditions? Ya know, besides the fact that sleeping inside the hull would protect them from the elements."
In my defense, how can you expect completely unfunded scientists (myself, John Davis, Ichimaru Gin) to have access to the same experimental and evidence-gathering facilities as globular scientists who receive thousands of pounds every year to cobble together Round Earth 'evidence'?
We are doing our best!
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
This seems to be the same thing that consists of all your arguments.
"It does exist, it is just too difficult and expensive for me to discover it. That and I would have to be exposed to the moonlight which will harm me. No, really, why else wouldn't sailors sleep on the decks of ships while sailing in wet, cold, and windy conditions? Ya know, besides the fact that sleeping inside the hull would protect them from the elements."
In my defense, how can you expect completely unfunded scientists (myself, John Davis, Ichimaru Gin) to have access to the same experimental and evidence-gathering facilities as globular scientists who receive thousands of pounds every year to cobble together Round Earth 'evidence'?
We are doing our best!
Most scientists who are endeavoring to prove a theory are published, so where can I find peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals documenting the experiments you have managed to perform?
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
This seems to be the same thing that consists of all your arguments.
"It does exist, it is just too difficult and expensive for me to discover it. That and I would have to be exposed to the moonlight which will harm me. No, really, why else wouldn't sailors sleep on the decks of ships while sailing in wet, cold, and windy conditions? Ya know, besides the fact that sleeping inside the hull would protect them from the elements."
In my defense, how can you expect completely unfunded scientists (myself, John Davis, Ichimaru Gin) to have access to the same experimental and evidence-gathering facilities as globular scientists who receive thousands of pounds every year to cobble together Round Earth 'evidence'?
We are doing our best!
Two pieces of glass and a brass tube. That's how the guys did it back in the old days. Why can't you?
-
I don't know if you've ever tried, but I'll have you know that accquiring Manna is actually very difficult. I have tried.
This seems to be the same thing that consists of all your arguments.
"It does exist, it is just too difficult and expensive for me to discover it. That and I would have to be exposed to the moonlight which will harm me. No, really, why else wouldn't sailors sleep on the decks of ships while sailing in wet, cold, and windy conditions? Ya know, besides the fact that sleeping inside the hull would protect them from the elements."
In my defense, how can you expect completely unfunded scientists (myself, John Davis, Ichimaru Gin) to have access to the same experimental and evidence-gathering facilities as globular scientists who receive thousands of pounds every year to cobble together Round Earth 'evidence'?
We are doing our best!
Apply for a research grant. Get a job as a research assistant. Infiltrate the conspiracy. Do you honestly think that RET scientists fund themselves.
-
I think you will come to disagree with this [weather] proposition when you consider similar bioluminescent life on Earth. We find quasi-lunar organisms in the bellies of tropical squid. They do indeed function in predictable patterns, dimming their bioluminescence in response to the squid's command, which itself is influenced by the squid's perception of light. Thus the organisms serve the purpose of the squid's headlights. However, in these instances, the predictability of their behaviour is engendered by their interaction with the squid. Could you posthulate the variable which causes the predictable reaction of the lunar organisms with such precision and on such a sharp semicircular vector?
I do believe that the lunar organisms react intensively when the antimoon eclipse occurs. We see the redness of the whole affair when the two bodies are aligned. Perhaps the Antimoon and Moon are engaged in an intense battle of damaging attacks on eachother, and the Antimoon bleeds on its underside in response to the violence.
Why apply for research grants when you do these kinds of thought experiments in your own comfy living room chair. Even better with friends. Police officers... not so much.
Taken from the Moon Negotiations thread under FE Believers. Brackets added for context. Boldness, for lulz.
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
Roses don't bleed. They don't have blood. You suggested the Anti Moon bleeds. Bleeding is leaking blood. You suggested the bleeding caused redness, in other words, that the blood was red. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking trick questions. Your quote is visible for all to see. You're trying to make out that I said "all red lifeforms have haemoglobin in them" - it's clear to everyone that's not what I said. Do you think the other forum users are morons?
-
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
You should really read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Colors are based on the reflective/absorption properties of molecules and atoms.
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
Roses don't bleed. They don't have blood. You suggested the Anti Moon bleeds. Bleeding is leaking blood. You suggested the bleeding caused redness, in other words, that the blood was red. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking trick questions. Your quote is visible for all to see. You're trying to make out that I said "all red lifeforms have haemoglobin in them" - it's clear to everyone that's not what I said. Do you think the other forum users are morons?
Either we all are, or he is. Wonder which it is?
-
I missed the part where james quantified Mana,blood rain,and life forms on the moon.
-
I missed the part where james quantified Mana,blood rain,and life forms on the moon.
The need to back prediction with quantitative data, calculations, models or any of that sort of mess never occurred. I think it boiled down to something along the lines of "rocks can't emit light, but luminescent organisms can, so it must be them." I've argued with about half of the active FE'rs about the moon being composed of varieties of basaltic rock... most of them play the "you're making this crap up" or just ignore it, so the first comment about rocks emitting light might be giving them too much credit. James also commented that it is known from ancient wisdom that the moon is alive. So the blood thing has to do with the 'antimoon' attacking the real moon... possibly with Chuck Norris-like roundhouse kicks.
-
I missed the part where james quantified Mana,blood rain,and life forms on the moon.
The need to back prediction with quantitative data, calculations, models or any of that sort of mess never occurred. I think it boiled down to something along the lines of "rocks can't emit light, but luminescent organisms can, so it must be them." I've argued with about half of the active FE'rs about the moon being composed of varieties of basaltic rock... most of them play the "you're making this crap up" or just ignore it, so the first comment about rocks emitting light might be giving them too much credit. James also commented that it is known from ancient wisdom that the moon is alive. So the blood thing has to do with the 'antimoon' attacking the real moon... possibly with Chuck Norris-like roundhouse kicks.
I suppose it is hard to debate when someone throws away a third party source,on the basis that they think its false.Which its self is based on a worldwide conspiracy.
-
I missed the part where james quantified Mana,blood rain,and life forms on the moon.
The need to back prediction with quantitative data, calculations, models or any of that sort of mess never occurred. I think it boiled down to something along the lines of "rocks can't emit light, but luminescent organisms can, so it must be them." I've argued with about half of the active FE'rs about the moon being composed of varieties of basaltic rock... most of them play the "you're making this crap up" or just ignore it, so the first comment about rocks emitting light might be giving them too much credit. James also commented that it is known from ancient wisdom that the moon is alive. So the blood thing has to do with the 'antimoon' attacking the real moon... possibly with Chuck Norris-like roundhouse kicks.
I suppose it is hard to debate when someone throws away a third party source,on the basis that they think its false.Which its self is based on a worldwide conspiracy.
It's hard to debate with someone who is delusional.
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
Roses don't bleed. They don't have blood. You suggested the Anti Moon bleeds. Bleeding is leaking blood. You suggested the bleeding caused redness, in other words, that the blood was red. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking trick questions. Your quote is visible for all to see. You're trying to make out that I said "all red lifeforms have haemoglobin in them" - it's clear to everyone that's not what I said. Do you think the other forum users are morons?
Just because human blood is red due to haemoglobin, what cause do you have to say that in all life forms blood whose blood is red this redness is caused by haemoglobin? Or will you back out for another obvious rhetorical trick ?
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
I think he has you confused with James. or just referring to an older post.
Some organisms have different types of 'blood' altogether, because oxygen can sometimes be extracted directly from the air or water (as dissolved oxygen) depending on how their circulatory system is made.
Anyway, the red is specifically caused by the iron in hemoglobin. When the iron is oxidized it reflects visible electromagnetic radiation that appears to us as the familiar red shade of blood. When there is no oxygen attached, the molecule absorbs different bands (based on the shape and size of the molecule) so it appears to us as blue. Personally, I don't know jack about biology. But I can say that color is always based on chemistry. Larger molecules/atoms absorb smaller wavelengths of the electromagnetic radiation than smaller ones. It's the exact same concept you see when you watch a ship or boat. Large waves rock and bounce off the boat, smaller waves don't. In other words, large waves can be seen immediately on the opposite side, whereas smaller waves can't penetrate, so you don't see them (called a 'boat shadow'?) until some distance behind the boat, based on it's size.
Here's a link if you'd like more detail
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_blood_red
Interesting read -- learned a few things myself.
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
You didn't, James did.
-
James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.
Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?
Roses don't bleed. They don't have blood. You suggested the Anti Moon bleeds. Bleeding is leaking blood. You suggested the bleeding caused redness, in other words, that the blood was red. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking trick questions. Your quote is visible for all to see. You're trying to make out that I said "all red lifeforms have haemoglobin in them" - it's clear to everyone that's not what I said. Do you think the other forum users are morons?
Just because human blood is red due to haemoglobin, what cause do you have to say that in all life forms blood whose blood is red this redness is caused by haemoglobin? Or will you back out for another obvious rhetorical trick ?
Fine, let's have it your way - what is the function of the Anti Moon's "blood"? You surely must know this since you know all these other things magically without needing science or data. Do tell.
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
You didn't, James did.
Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
You didn't, James did.
Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??
Sure, it allows you to claim something without actually technically making that claim.
Try telling us how FET works, not just making wild guesses as to how observed phenomena might be possible. Experimentation is a good way to start.
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
You didn't, James did.
Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??
As in, "Perhaps James is a seroius troll?"
-
What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?
Where did I claim they did?
You didn't, James did.
Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??
As in, "Perhaps James is a seroius troll?"
More like "maybe", as in "this and several millions of other scenarios are equally possible, you could just the same say the aliens from the fifth dimension did it, even though one scenario is more probable than all the others combined".
In this case, I can say that the aliens from the fifth dimension paint the moon again every 28 days, and I have as much evidence for that than James or Davis do.
While semantically correct, blabbering anything and then saying "perhaps" is the total negation of the possibility of getting any good knowledge.
It is like when I tell you "the sun is hot" and you respond "perhaps we live in a simulation, like in the movie Matrix, and the sun does not even exist".
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
You're quite right John, although I'm fairly convinced there is actually life moving around up there as well as weather - probably a combination of the two. The redness of blood rain is in all likelyhood dependent on the Red Moon phenomenon described by Lardner.
I'm indeed interested in that possibility as well.
-
No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.
It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns. This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it. Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not) via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system. The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.
You're quite right John, although I'm fairly convinced there is actually life moving around up there as well as weather - probably a combination of the two. The redness of blood rain is in all likelyhood dependent on the Red Moon phenomenon described by Lardner.
I'm indeed interested in that possibility as well.
Warms the cockles of my heart to see John Davis and James trolling each other with such straight faces.
-
Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life. I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks. I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks. I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored. I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input. I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)
-
The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.
the current prevailing scientific view
Please provide proof that any legitimate "scientist" views this as fact.
-
Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life. I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks. I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks. I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored. I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input. I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)
You have yet to publish any of your work, so its kind of hard to take you seriously.
-
Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life. I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks. I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks. I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored. I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input. I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)
Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.
-
Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life. I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks. I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks. I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored. I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input. I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)
Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.
I doubt that the musician in question would have played guitar for 10 years and have a passion for music and a belief that it indeed exists. The point is the ridiculousness of the claim that I am a troll. Not how good I am at my passion.
-
Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life. I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks. I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks. I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored. I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input. I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)
Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.
I doubt that the musician in question would have played guitar for 10 years and have a passion for music and a belief that it indeed exists. The point is the ridiculousness of the claim that I am a troll. Not how good I am at my passion.
The claim that you are a troll is not ridiculous at all. You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs. Your claims that you have formed these local groups and endure abuse and prejudice can actually be very easily verified, as can your claim that you are writing a book - but only if you want them to be. Please do give us the phone numbers of people that know you. Please post me a hard copy of a material advertising your group meetings, or the phone number of someone who'se been to one. Please do e-mail me some excerpts from your book.
But you'll refuse to do any of this, and so the assumption you are a troll remains just as valid as the assumption that you are not. Your wave function has yet to collapse, Mr Davis.
If you do not give out evidence that you're not a troll then you must accept that it is a reasonable accusation to make.
-
You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.
lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.
-
You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.
lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.
We've been getting them all over the place.
-
You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.
lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.
No, the George Scott fallacy would be if I tried to refute Mr Davis's flat earth arguments by claiming he doesn't believe them himself.
What I am doing is simply accusing Mr Davis of being a troll, and by saying he has presented no evidence that he is not such a creature. This accusation has no bearing on whether or not I think Mr Davis's FE beliefs are true or not.
Try to troll a little less lazily in future.
-
Picture Could be fake.
might be an eye illusion
maybe the disc looks funny
there are alot of reasons that can not prove that your correct. but you cant prove that your correct either.
-
Picture Could be fake.
might be an eye illusion
maybe the disc looks funny
there are alot of reasons that can not prove that your correct. but you cant prove that your correct either.
The OP includes the dates the photographs were taken, thus allowing possible cross checking with other photographs or observations of the moon on the same dates. This eliminates the possibility of them simply being "faked".
It's not an eye illusion, hold a ruler up to your screen.
"The disc looks funny" is meaningless.