The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 02:30:21 PM
-
Again, I read this in the FAQ. (You may be noticing a trend in my recent threads.)
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"
A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.
Where is your evidence to back this up?
-
There is none. The Antimoon is a conclusion by inference, and there is no direct evidence for it.
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, why don't you share what you're smoking? I've been out to the desert New Mexico. You can look up out there, an area with no light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution), and see there is no area of the sky where there are no stars.
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, why don't you share what you're smoking? I've been out to the desert New Mexico. You can look up out there, an area with no light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution), and see there is no area of the sky where there are no stars.
1) If there was no area without stars, the sky would be white.
2) Are you saying that you see stars inside the crescent moon, where the rest of the moon should be?
3) Are you saying that during a lunar eclipse, you can see stars where the moon should be?
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
So you see stars vanish them reappear at night?
That should show up pretty well on a time lapse photo.
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, why don't you share what you're smoking? I've been out to the desert New Mexico. You can look up out there, an area with no light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution), and see there is no area of the sky where there are no stars.
1) If there was no area without stars, the sky would be white.
2) Are you saying that you see stars inside the crescent moon, where the rest of the moon should be?
3) Are you saying that during a lunar eclipse, you can see stars where the moon should be?
He's telling me there is a round area of the sky with no stars, right now, without an eclipse occurring. I'm saying I've seen otherwise. Now, if you would like to try answering my question, instead of taking shots at me, please, be my guest.
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
So you see stars vanish them reappear at night?
That should show up pretty well on a time lapse photo.
Perhaps so; since the sky is freely available to all peoples of the Earth, I am sure it would be little trouble for you to locate the Antimoon on a given night using this method. I prefer to stay away from the open sky on a cloudless night, however, as the Moon's rays are damaging to human health.
-
The evidence is in the sky. You can just go out on a clear night and see the darn thing! (Since it doesn't emit light, look for the area with no stars)
So you see stars vanish them reappear at night?
That should show up pretty well on a time lapse photo.
Perhaps so; since the sky is freely available to all peoples of the Earth, I am sure it would be little trouble for you to locate the Antimoon on a given night using this method. I prefer to stay away from the open sky on a cloudless night, however, as the Moon's rays are damaging to human health.
I'm pretty sure someone hacked your account because every one of your posts for the past few days have been more retarded then ever. (Not saying they generally are.)
Moons rays are damaging to health? Well how are they? I've been watching the skies since I was 5 and I'm healthy so far. ???
-
I'm pretty sure someone hacked your account because every one of your posts for the past few days have been more retarded then ever. (Not saying they generally are.)
I can assure you that I am entirely myself, in as much as anybody is ever themselves.
Moons rays are damaging to health? Well how are they? I've been watching the skies since I was 5 and I'm healthy so far. ???
It is common knowledge that exposure to the Moon can cause blindness and even death. It is injurous to plants and animals as well as humans. The Royal Navy prohibits sailors from sleeping on deck precisely to prevent prolonged exposure to Moonlight, which can peturb the brains of the crew and make them unfit to fight.
-
I'm pretty sure someone hacked your account because every one of your posts for the past few days have been more retarded then ever. (Not saying they generally are.)
I can assure you that I am entirely myself, in as much as anybody is ever themselves.
Moons rays are damaging to health? Well how are they? I've been watching the skies since I was 5 and I'm healthy so far. ???
It is common knowledge that exposure to the Moon can cause blindness and even death. It is injurous to plants and animals as well as humans. The Royal Navy prohibits sailors from sleeping on deck precisely to prevent prolonged exposure to Moonlight, which can peturb the brains of the crew and make them unfit to fight.
1.I'm not blind and I look at the moon all the time.
2.I'm not dead I'm typing to you arent I? Hell If I'm blind I wouldnt be typing.
3.You didnt mention how it can peturb their brains, I'd like a reference to that please...And the first two.
-
Moons rays are damaging to health? Well how are they? I've been watching the skies since I was 5 and I'm healthy so far. ???
It is common knowledge that exposure to the Moon can cause blindness and even death. It is injurous to plants and animals as well as humans. The Royal Navy prohibits sailors from sleeping on deck precisely to prevent prolonged exposure to Moonlight, which can peturb the brains of the crew and make them unfit to fight.
Maybe it's common knowledge in the mental hospital they have you in, but not out here in the real world.
-
For references to its effects on plants, eyes and naval ordinances, see Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. pp. 140-142.
-
For references to its effects on plants, eyes and naval ordinances, see Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. pp. 140-142.
I dont currently have it in my obtainment currently although I may eventually buy it. Also, is that book currently credible? And are their any other references to the moons affects on humans and plants besides that book?
-
Dr Lardner's Museum of Art and Science contains information regarding the properties of the Moon.
-
Dr Lardner's Museum of Art and Science contains information regarding the properties of the Moon.
Do you currently have any up to date references? Much has developed in the field of science since then.
-
Dr Lardner's Museum of Art and Science contains information regarding the properties of the Moon.
Do you currently have any up to date references? Much has developed in the field of science since then.
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.
-
That should get you started off, there is plenty more contemporary evidence on the multitude of negative effects of Moonlight. It increases aggression and mental degeneracy in animals and humans alike.
-
1) If there was no area without stars, the sky would be white.
??? :o
-
Dr Lardner's Museum of Art and Science contains information regarding the properties of the Moon.
Do you currently have any up to date references? Much has developed in the field of science since then.
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.
I will certainly attempt to get the first one. Although I never generally have any agressive behaviors or mental degeneracy...
-
Here. again, is a link James is too lazy to post.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_140
It proves nothing other than living things need sunlight.
And I just realized James has derailed my friggin thread!!!!!!!!
Prove there is an antimoon! Cite scientific data, not your massively outdated books.
-
Here. again, is a link James is too lazy to post.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_140
It proves nothing other than living things need sunlight.
And I just realized James has derailed my friggin thread!!!!!!!!
Prove there is an antimoon! Cite scientific data, not your massively outdated books.
I just cited two peer-reviewed articles from the last 30 years to support my claims about Moonlight. Why don't you cite some up-to-date documents which contradict me?
-
Here. again, is a link James is too lazy to post.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_140
It proves nothing other than living things need sunlight.
And I just realized James has derailed my friggin thread!!!!!!!!
Prove there is an antimoon! Cite scientific data, not your massively outdated books.
I just cited two peer-reviewed articles from the last 30 years to support my claims about Moonlight. Why don't you cite some up-to-date documents which contradict me?
Nice try. I challenged you to prove the existence of an antimoon. You've changed the subject to try and talk about moonlight and it's effects on the Earth. See, I'm not the person making wild, baseless claims, so therefor, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the Flat Earth Society.
-
Nice try. I challenged you to prove the existence of an antimoon. You've changed the subject to try and talk about moonlight and it's effects on the Earth. See, I'm not the person making wild, baseless claims, so therefor, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the Flat Earth Society.
I did not change the subject at all, dude55 brought up the effects of Moonlight, which seem fairly relevent to the current subject matter (i.e. viewing the Antimoon), and I responded with evidence.
You can step out on your front porch and see the Antimoon. It's not a wild, baseless claim, it's an appeal to obvious empirical facts.
-
Nice try. I challenged you to prove the existence of an antimoon. You've changed the subject to try and talk about moonlight and it's effects on the Earth. See, I'm not the person making wild, baseless claims, so therefor, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the Flat Earth Society.
I did not change the subject at all, dude55 brought up the effects of Moonlight, which seem fairly relevent to the current subject matter (i.e. viewing the Antimoon), and I responded with evidence.
You can step out on your front porch and see the Antimoon. It's not a wild, baseless claim, it's an appeal to obvious empirical facts.
Please, post a picture of the antimoon. Here's what Google comes up with. (http://images.google.com/images?pws=0&q=antimoon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
-
Nice try. I challenged you to prove the existence of an antimoon. You've changed the subject to try and talk about moonlight and it's effects on the Earth. See, I'm not the person making wild, baseless claims, so therefor, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the Flat Earth Society.
I did not change the subject at all, dude55 brought up the effects of Moonlight, which seem fairly relevent to the current subject matter (i.e. viewing the Antimoon), and I responded with evidence.
You can step out on your front porch and see the Antimoon. It's not a wild, baseless claim, it's an appeal to obvious empirical facts.
Please, post a picture of the antimoon. Here's what Google comes up with. (http://images.google.com/images?pws=0&q=antimoon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
I don't have a picture of the Antimoon to hand, not least because it's one of the most boring objects in the night sky. You could go outside on almost any clear night and photograph it for yourself - it's the Moon-sized patch of starless sky.
-
Nice try. I challenged you to prove the existence of an antimoon. You've changed the subject to try and talk about moonlight and it's effects on the Earth. See, I'm not the person making wild, baseless claims, so therefor, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the Flat Earth Society.
I did not change the subject at all, dude55 brought up the effects of Moonlight, which seem fairly relevent to the current subject matter (i.e. viewing the Antimoon), and I responded with evidence.
You can step out on your front porch and see the Antimoon. It's not a wild, baseless claim, it's an appeal to obvious empirical facts.
Please, post a picture of the antimoon. Here's what Google comes up with. (http://images.google.com/images?pws=0&q=antimoon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
I don't have a picture of the Antimoon to hand, not least because it's one of the most boring objects in the night sky. You could go outside on almost any clear night and photograph it for yourself - it's the Moon-sized patch of starless sky.
You guys are all messed up. You tell us to do crap. Why can't you? Stop making excuses, and prove EVERYTHING that has to do with the Flat Earth Society. I hate when people ask for evidence, you link to THIS website. Hello? Of course it will back up what you say!
-
1) If there was no area without stars, the sky would be white.
??? :o
Yeah, I was confused at first, too. Then I realized if there was no empty spaces, the stars would fill up the sky, giving an impression of a white sky at night. (Psst, the Antimoon spot... it doesn't exist, James. Your head is hard boiled.)
-
I don't have a picture of the Antimoon to hand, not least because it's one of the most boring objects in the night sky. You could go outside on almost any clear night and photograph it for yourself - it's the Moon-sized patch of starless sky.
You guys are all messed up. You tell us to do crap. Why can't you? Stop making excuses, and prove EVERYTHING that has to do with the Flat Earth Society. I hate when people ask for evidence, you link to THIS website. Hello? Of course it will back up what you say!
[/quote]
Why does the Antimoon even really have anything to do with the shape of the Earth? I mean, it exists whether the Earth is flat, round or a donut. It's out there in the sky for everyone to see. Why does globularism drive people to deny the most basic facts in order to defend their crazy theory?
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
-
I don't have a picture of the Antimoon to hand, not least because it's one of the most boring objects in the night sky. You could go outside on almost any clear night and photograph it for yourself - it's the Moon-sized patch of starless sky.
You guys are all messed up. You tell us to do crap. Why can't you? Stop making excuses, and prove EVERYTHING that has to do with the Flat Earth Society. I hate when people ask for evidence, you link to THIS website. Hello? Of course it will back up what you say!
Why does the Antimoon even really have anything to do with the shape of the Earth? I mean, it exists whether the Earth is flat, round or a donut. It's out there in the sky for everyone to see. Why does globularism drive people to deny the most basic facts in order to defend their crazy theory?
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
He's gonna say something shitty like "It's a government website. Its fake!" Don't bother with him.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
-
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
I don't even understand the point of this kind of request, I can no more show you the Antimoon than I can tell you to go outside and look in the sky. Do you want me to drive to your house and point?
-
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
I don't even understand the point of this kind of request, I can no more show you the Antimoon than I can tell you to go outside and look in the sky. Do you want me to drive to your house and point?
That, actually, would be nice. But I'll save you the trouble. Here's what you can do. Take your digital camera, take a picture, download it to your computer, and then show me the place where the antimoon is by drawing a circle. Thanks!
-
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
I don't even understand the point of this kind of request, I can no more show you the Antimoon than I can tell you to go outside and look in the sky. Do you want me to drive to your house and point?
That, actually, would be nice. But I'll save you the trouble. Here's what you can do. Take your digital camera, take a picture, download it to your computer, and then show me the place where the antimoon is by drawing a circle. Thanks!
I do not have a digital camera. Can't you just go outside?
-
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
I don't even understand the point of this kind of request, I can no more show you the Antimoon than I can tell you to go outside and look in the sky. Do you want me to drive to your house and point?
That, actually, would be nice. But I'll save you the trouble. Here's what you can do. Take your digital camera, take a picture, download it to your computer, and then show me the place where the antimoon is by drawing a circle. Thanks!
I do not have a digital camera. Can't you just go outside?
Nope. And buy one. It is the essentials of today.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
Ok, I told you he'd make up a crap excuse. So James, unless I'm extremely blind, I don't see the place where it's pieced together. Just because you're a nice guy, why don't you download the picture, edit the picture to draw where it is pieced together, save it, then post the new one here. Because I don't see the line. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance!
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Wow... is that it? Are you seriously going to go by that?
I guess you don't understand how a panoramic image is made do you?
See, no camera in the world can capture 360 degrees of an image simultaneously. None. So the best way to do it is to take one frame at a time, rotating the camera a specific degrees, then pitch it up and do it again until you have the whole area. You then take the pictures and paste them together.
Unless you'd like to tell me how to do it with a single camera taking only one image.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
[/quote]
Why should I? The only thing it says was that animal bites increased during a full moon cycle. These are bites during the day or night, not just night. The other showed a correlation between reported crimes on lunar days.
They both don't say anything about WHY it is, just that it is. And even if you want to say it's increased aggression, I hardly consider that blindness or death.
You can make up whatever idea you want, but until a study is done to see what changes occur in humans during the lunar cycle, you have nothing but correlation. And correlation doesn't mean anything.
After all, the reading scores in elementary schools are directly related to the child's shoe size.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
Ok, I told you he'd make up a crap excuse. So James, unless I'm extremely blind, I don't see the place where it's pieced together. Just because you're a nice guy, why don't you download the picture, edit the picture to draw where it is pieced together, save it, then post the new one here. Because I don't see the line. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance!
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
Ok, I told you he'd make up a crap excuse. So James, unless I'm extremely blind, I don't see the place where it's pieced together. Just because you're a nice guy, why don't you download the picture, edit the picture to draw where it is pieced together, save it, then post the new one here. Because I don't see the line. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance!
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
My signature will explain everything. And I'm not experienced with this stuff.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
Ok, I told you he'd make up a crap excuse. So James, unless I'm extremely blind, I don't see the place where it's pieced together. Just because you're a nice guy, why don't you download the picture, edit the picture to draw where it is pieced together, save it, then post the new one here. Because I don't see the line. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/for_the_benefit_of_the_extremely_st.png)
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
-
Well James, I found a panoramic picture of the night sky and I can't seem to find the Anti-moon.
http://www.nps.gov/labe/parknews/images/Nightsky_from_Beds_2_KFalls_moonrising_milkyway.jpg
Can you tell me where it is?
You can literally see the lines where it's been pieced together on the computer. Seriously, Round Earthers always complain about our mistrust for "photo evidence", but they really prove our point when they come up with trash like this.
Also:
The effects of moonlight are false.
How do I know?
Nocturnal animals. If moonlight was harmful, they wouldn't be here.
I have just cited two recent peer-reviewed studies which directly contradict this claim. You should write to the British Medical Journal with your data and get them to redact those articles.
Ok, I told you he'd make up a crap excuse. So James, unless I'm extremely blind, I don't see the place where it's pieced together. Just because you're a nice guy, why don't you download the picture, edit the picture to draw where it is pieced together, save it, then post the new one here. Because I don't see the line. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks in advance!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/for_the_benefit_of_the_extremely_st.png)
*chuckle* I thought we cleared this up with Lorddave. So let's talk about the blank spot in the sky you say exists.
-
If by "cleared up" you mean "dismissed because the image is doctored", then yes, we did.
As I've already told you, if you get up off your arse and go outside at night, you can see the Antimoon for yourself.
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
-
If by "cleared up" you mean "dismissed because the image is doctored", then yes, we did.
As I've already told you, if you get up off your arse and go outside at night, you can see the Antimoon for yourself.
Ok, I had to go outside. I didn't see it. Can you be more specific? Where would it be located? Near Polaris, Vega, The Big and/or Little Dipper? And the image is obviously doctored by FE'ers. We [now me also] are trying to explain how you can make a full 360 picture with one shot.
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
Yes, this makes it the 4th time.
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
WHY CAN'T YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO BLACK SPOT IN THE SKY? OR IF THERE IS, SHOW ME!
-
If by "cleared up" you mean "dismissed because the image is doctored", then yes, we did.
As I've already told you, if you get up off your arse and go outside at night, you can see the Antimoon for yourself.
Ok, I had to go outside. I didn't see it. Can you be more specific? Where would it be located? Near Polaris, Vega, The Big and/or Little Dipper? And the image is obviously doctored by FE'ers. We [now me also] are trying to explain how you can make a full 360 picture with one shot.
Clearly its position in the sky has no relation to the stars, it is much closer to Earth. Which hemiplane are you in, inner or outer? And what is your longditude?
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
Very well then.
Tell me how I can make a 360 degree panoramic image that isn't made up of a collage of images that will satisfy you.
Should I take a video camera and pan it around?
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
WHY CAN'T YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO BLACK SPOT IN THE SKY? OR IF THERE IS, SHOW ME!
I am doing my absolute best to try and help you locate the Antimoon, you clearly do not actually care about seeing it or not. I am not sure how much further I can progress with this nonsense.
-
Very well then.
Tell me how I can make a 360 degree panoramic image that isn't made up of a collage of images that will satisfy you.
Should I take a video camera and pan it around?
I don't want to see a 360 degree collage of the sky, I don't know why you keep bringing this up?
-
Very well then.
Tell me how I can make a 360 degree panoramic image that isn't made up of a collage of images that will satisfy you.
Should I take a video camera and pan it around?
I don't want to see a 360 degree collage of the sky, I don't know why you keep bringing this up?
I know you don't.
So how do I get a picture that isn't one?
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
WHY CAN'T YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO BLACK SPOT IN THE SKY? OR IF THERE IS, SHOW ME!
I am doing my absolute best to try and help you locate the Antimoon, you clearly do not actually care about seeing it or not. I am not sure how much further I can progress with this nonsense.
No, I really do want to see it. And what is a hemiplane? I live in New York. Where would it app. be?
-
I bolded the important part. Show me the antimoon. And they are related. I'll tell you how. They're related because they are both crap that FE'ers made up to keep stupid websites like these going so everyone can get a good rofl. People believe in a flat Earth because THEY are the one's paid. The real conspiracy is the FE'ers. Next thing we know, they're gonna brainwash the RE'ers into thinkin the world is flat. And you know, you make me lmfao, but not as much as Parsifal.
I don't even understand the point of this kind of request, I can no more show you the Antimoon than I can tell you to go outside and look in the sky. Do you want me to drive to your house and point?
That, actually, would be nice. But I'll save you the trouble. Here's what you can do. Take your digital camera, take a picture, download it to your computer, and then show me the place where the antimoon is by drawing a circle. Thanks!
I do not have a digital camera. Can't you just go outside?
Not everyone has the luxury of living in a place where you can see stars(i know you can't in NY due to light pollution) but even when i have left the all i saw were stars in the night sky(all over the place.)Additionaly i have yet to see any mention of such an area in the night sky.
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
WHY CAN'T YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO BLACK SPOT IN THE SKY? OR IF THERE IS, SHOW ME!
I am doing my absolute best to try and help you locate the Antimoon, you clearly do not actually care about seeing it or not. I am not sure how much further I can progress with this nonsense.
No, I really do want to see it. And what is a hemiplane? I live in New York. Where would it app. be?
Depending on whereabouts in the city you are, the light pollution may be too great for you to locate it precisely. But, if you hold on a minute, I will go outside and try and estimate its position.
-
Umm...
It IS pieced together. Has to be.
If you zoom into the picture, on the lower left corner where the sunlight is (could be moonlight with high light sensitivity on the camera) you'll notice where the frames were split. The left and right of the "sun" has a different shade of the ground.
So you admit that the picture you presented to us is doctored. That's all I was really going for right there.
If by doctored you mean a bunch of unaltered images put together side by side then yes.
But usually doctored means altered.
Is a collage an altered image?
Is a puzzle an altered image?
Can you give me any specific way to take one image of a 360 degree angle?
There is no possible way to verify the contiguity of the images in a such a collage. Why must you insist on trying to justify your use of doctored images? Why can't you prove your point without resorting to that kind of unscrupulous evasion?
WHY CAN'T YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO BLACK SPOT IN THE SKY? OR IF THERE IS, SHOW ME!
I am doing my absolute best to try and help you locate the Antimoon, you clearly do not actually care about seeing it or not. I am not sure how much further I can progress with this nonsense.
No, I really do want to see it. And what is a hemiplane? I live in New York. Where would it app. be?
Depending on whereabouts in the city you are, the light pollution may be too great for you to locate it precisely. But, if you hold on a minute, I will go outside and try and estimate its position.
Ok, tell me. Where might it be?
-
Fisheye lenses work great for taking 360 spherical panoramas
http://www.footootjes.nl/Panoramas_Ladakh_2008/Panoramas/20080805_Hotel_NightSky_flash.html
There.
inb4 "It's behind the trees"
-
Fisheye lenses work great for taking 360 spherical panoramas
http://www.footootjes.nl/Panoramas_Ladakh_2008/Panoramas/20080805_Hotel_NightSky_flash.html
There.
inb4 "It's behind the trees"
Its behind the building. ::)
-
(http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3290/antimoonretards.jpg)
((This is me pointing out how blatantly obvious it would be.))
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
-
Fisheye lenses work great for taking 360 spherical panoramas
http://www.footootjes.nl/Panoramas_Ladakh_2008/Panoramas/20080805_Hotel_NightSky_flash.html
There.
inb4 "It's behind the trees"
Really?
They can actually make a fisheye lens to take a 360 degree panorama in one image?
-
You're right that with a regular camera (one that only captures the light from a small area in front of it) taking many still photographs, a collage does have to be made, and even then it's never perfect. It's like adding more and more sides to a polygon; you never get a true circle, but you can get infinitely close--and the pictures you make can be incredibly accurate. Calling such a collage "doctored" is an exercise in stupidity. Extreme fish-eye lens photos are a cool way around the problem.
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
Ahh, the wonderful postings of an internet troll. I applaud your commitment to angering the people here with nonense postings.
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
Globularists and Zeteticists vs. The rest of the world; So these cults can see the anti-moon (and apparently it is infront of our faces) but I cannot? I've watched the skys since I was a young lad and never have I been able to infer the existence of an object that "blots" out the stars in the sky. There are people whos jobs require them to arduously search the sky on a daily (nightly?) basis yet no one has ever come across this anti-moon or even noticed an inconsistency that would indicate the existance of a dark mobile object.
So please, if it is so obvious that this thing exists, take a picture and show us. Shouldn't take you more than a few minutes since you've "shown" us that you can easily find it. Don't you think you could convince us easier just by proving it right here and now? Actually this leads me to another question. If your cults are so adamant about the existence of the anti-moon, why have none of them captured a photograph of it? In fact, why is there no proof what-so-ever that there is an anti-moon?
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
There's only one response to this worth making:
lol
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
There's only one response to this worth making:
lol
Yes. Thermal Detonator is right. And no James, we do not not believe it because it is a "FE phenomenon. We don't believe it because we don't see it when you say it's obvious. And I thought you were going to pinpoint the location of the antimoon?
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
There's only one response to this worth making:
lol
Enjoy your vacation.
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
Pray tell, James, what is the globuraist term for the antimoon?
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
There's only one response to this worth making:
lol
Enjoy your vacation.
Where's he going?
-
If the antimoon is such a well known topic..... how come wikipedia only has this for antimoon?
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimoon
-
Given that astronomers in the 1700's were able to notice and plot the orbit of a dim object on the fringe of naked eye visibility and work out that it was a new planet (Uranus), it is almost inconceivable with the equipment and techniques that modern astronomers have at their command that the only person EVER to see this Antimoon is our own Mad James (and he can't be bothered to photograph the find of the century and receive the prestige that would put him on a scientific pedestal level with William Herschel, Stephen Hawking and Dr Who.)
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
There's only one response to this worth making:
lol
Enjoy your vacation.
Where's he going?
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
-
You don't need to know where he's going. Please stay on topic.
-
You don't need to know where he's going. Please stay on topic.
Ok. Even though "enjoy your vacation" is really on-topic... Really, Mr. Jack. why not give John Davis a vacation?
If the Antimoon is such a well known topic..... How come Wikipedia only has this for Antimoon?
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimoon
ROFL! I can't read the Netherlands' language, but isn't this an element? And there is no English article about the Antimoon. What now, James?
-
Fisheye lenses work great for taking 360 spherical panoramas
http://www.footootjes.nl/Panoramas_Ladakh_2008/Panoramas/20080805_Hotel_NightSky_flash.html
There.
inb4 "It's behind the trees"
Really?
They can actually make a fisheye lens to take a 360 degree panorama in one image?
Not one image, but with fisheye lenses, images stitch together perfectly leaving no lines like James pointed out in that other one.
Plus, having viewable in full 360 spherical form makes it impossible that it is edited, because then it wouldn't line up properly and would look very screwed up.
-
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
I'm not angry at anyone. I enforce when someone habitually posts low content posts. He has been warned and banned about this in the past and the forums are constantly getting worse and worse. As Jack says though, lets keep it on topic.
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
-
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
What shadow object?
-
I think he means the Moon when it goes infront of the Sun, blocking it out.
-
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
What shadow object?
The antimoon.
-
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
What shadow object?
The antimoon.
Way to misunderstand your own theory.
The "shadow object" and the "antimoon" are two completely different items according to your own theory.
You need a FAQ refresher course.
-
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
What shadow object?
Yeah. Are you talking about eclipses? And the antimoon isnt similar to anything in RE science.
-
Again, I read this in the FAQ. (You may be noticing a trend in my recent threads.)
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"
A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.
Where is your evidence to back this up?
This thread got derailed a bit. I'm still waiting for evidence to support the antimoon mentioned the FAQ.
-
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
What shadow object?
The antimoon.
Way to misunderstand your own theory.
The "shadow object" and the "antimoon" are two completely different items according to your own theory.
You need a FAQ refresher course.
No, they aren't.
Though there has been confusion about the term in the past. I originally dubbed the submoon the antimoon, but later changed it due to its ambiguity at the suggestion of James. Perhaps this is why you think the antimoon is "my theory." Like James correctly points out, it is a pretty darn old concept. Here's the thread if you don't remember it:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19203.msg350980#msg350980
-
Ah, yes, submoon.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Three celestial bodies, the sun, Earth and Moon line up with either the moon blocking our the sun (solar eclipse), or the Earth blocking out the moon (lunar eclipse).
Here's are some diagrams.
Solar eclipse
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/solareclipsesvg.png)
Lunar eclipse
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/lunar_eclipse_diagram.gif)
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
"Go outside."
Well I went outside, and I dont see it. James were just asking you to let us know where it might be. I live in Florida, I have no idea what 'zone' that is on your flat earth map. Just let me know where to look so I can further help us understand eachother and come to a conclusion on whether the Earth is flat or not.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
I'll guess his responses.
1.Its about the size of the regular moon.
2.No.
3. In front of what?
4. The exact middle of the orbit of the moon and earth.
5.We saw it outside and calculated the information and observed with a telescope.
-
5. And how did you figure all this out?
5.We saw it outside and calculated the information and observed with a telescope.
I'd actually love to see what they have to say about this one.
Seeing as it is unable to be observed with any equipment what-so-ever.
-
5. And how did you figure all this out?
5.We saw it outside and calculated the information and observed with a telescope.
I'd actually love to see what they have to say about this one.
Seeing as it is unable to be observed with any equipment what-so-ever.
Seriously? Its NOT?
Hot damn how would they explain it.
-
I don't know, I've looked at the moon through a telescope and there seems to appear that there is a shadow on its surface. So if there is an anti-moon that's a flat circle in shape, why is it that when you look at the moon, it doesn't look like there is anything blocking out the stars as two overlapping circles would show? How come it looks like a shadow when I look at it through my telescope. If it's a shadow, and the stars where this anti-moon would be hanging off the real moon do not disappear. I have come to the conclusion based on the scientific method, that it is a shadow. Here is my study:
1 - Ask a question
Is there an Anti-Moon?
2 - Do the research.
There is apparently a 'documented' case where stars disappear from the sky according to this forum. I cannot find any information outside of here, although that does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.
3 - Form a Hypothesis.
I want to try and prove the existence of another celestial body between Earth and the Moon. I believe there is not one, but will try to disprove this belief.
4 - Test this hypothesis.
When I observe the moon at night through a telescope, It appears to me that the moon has a shadow cast on it not unlike shining a flashlight on a beach ball, with a smaller beach ball behind it. If the ball is off-center, the light that is not blocked by the first ball will be cast onto the smaller ball, revealing the shadow of what would seem like a 'crescent'. This shadow would explain why the stars next to the moon do not also disappear. If the existence of an ''anti-moon" was true, I conclude that it would be visible in regions blotting stars out, and during a full moon said object would be observable through a telescopic lens. The stars would also be blotted out by this solid object that has enough mass to cut the light from 'mother moon'. Not on a "Oh, there have been reported cases of this" level, but on a constant, irrefutable level. I also observed that in the shaded regions of the moon, the craters are identical and viable to the eye. This phenomena can only be explained by a shadow. Furthermore. I must ask how either the moon or the anti-moon are suspended over us, because according to this place, any orbit is impossible.
5 - Analyze Data
In my observations, I found that the stars near the dark side of the moon were completely visible. This concludes without a doubt that if there were an object there with mass enough to block the light from reaching earth so that we would see it as a 'crescent', than it would have blocked out the stars near the dark side also.
6 - Report Results
The results of my study can be reproduced by anyone who has a telescope and an open mind to the truth. I came to the conclusion that if there was a celestial body large enough to block out the light reflected from the sun (Or radiated from 'mother moon') than it would also be powerful enough to, on a rather constant basis, block out the stars. If this is not true, and I cannot locate any object in the sky matching the description of the Anti-Moon, I must conclude that it does not exist. The dark parts of the moon must be created by a shadow, not by another object. Furthermore, I would have to ask that if it is another object, than why is it that in my results, I see the craters of the moon still in the shaded portions. These craters are the same as when the moon is full.
There... For all of you wondering how the scientific method works. Please refer to this study. Your anti-moon has been debunked by science. Not only can this study be made, but it can be reproduced without getting a different result. That, in the realm of science, is proven to be a fact. Please, report your findings as I have if you wish to contest me. For all of you looking for a visual representation of this scientific method, please refer here so you can even get the pretty colors too...
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
You cannot combat hard, physical evidence that anyone with a telescope can observe on a clear night. Don't try to disprove this with "Conspiracy!" "Kill the non-believer!" or any of that crap. Anyone with an eye, and an open mind can go out and see this to be true. If it is not, please explain to me in great detail why it is the way you believe it.
;D Convert Me! ;D
Ooooh, Pwnt by the noob!
Good day...
-
I'm sorry justaquestion but your failing to factor in something key...
In a FET universe, anything is possible. So the Anti-moon, in a FET universe, could change shape and only block out moonlight but not starlight.
I'm sorry but it's impossible to disprove FET when FET doesn't allow the laws of physics to exist.
-
c: You're entirely right
In a world where 1 + 1 equals 1 but bigger. Where satellites cannot sustain orbit, but apparently a moon does just fine, When the world is flat, and the water is held in by a giant wall of ice and land, anything is possible! You cannot disprove the basis for a nice sci-fi novel! No, you use crappy 1800's books and such. When confronted with a real question you ignore it and dodge to some typo the one asking made!
Science is a sham! The world is flat and there is nothing we can do about it! Its all a conspiracy!
...
I still wanna know about my stars...
:P
-
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
Globularists and Zeteticists vs. The rest of the world; So these cults can see the anti-moon (and apparently it is infront of our faces) but I cannot? I've watched the skys since I was a young lad and never have I been able to infer the existence of an object that "blots" out the stars in the sky. There are people whos jobs require them to arduously search the sky on a daily (nightly?) basis yet no one has ever come across this anti-moon or even noticed an inconsistency that would indicate the existance of a dark mobile object.
So please, if it is so obvious that this thing exists, take a picture and show us. Shouldn't take you more than a few minutes since you've "shown" us that you can easily find it. Don't you think you could convince us easier just by proving it right here and now? Actually this leads me to another question. If your cults are so adamant about the existence of the anti-moon, why have none of them captured a photograph of it? In fact, why is there no proof what-so-ever that there is an anti-moon?
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
Yes. Thermal Detonator is right. And no James, we do not not believe it because it is a "FE phenomenon. We don't believe it because we don't see it when you say it's obvious. And I thought you were going to pinpoint the location of the antimoon?
It is too dangerous outside.
If the antimoon is such a well known topic..... how come wikipedia only has this for antimoon?
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimoon
Why should discrepancies in the content of a freely editable internet encyclopedia be good reason to deny what is plainly true, and widely known? I've noticed that many of our current on-site globularists tend to put their faith in Wikipedia, since presumably they find the rigors of reading actual scientific documents too daunting. Wikipedia is a hotbed of inaccuracy. It is not respected as a source by any academic, globularist or planarist, and for good reason.
I have come to the conclusion based on the scientific method, that it is a shadow.
You have clearly not even bothered to read the very first chapter of our most canonical literature, how presumptous of you. Earth Not a Globe Chapter I: "Zetetic and Theoretic defined and compared". Theoretic Scientific Method is epistemologically bankrupt. Only Zetetic Scientific Method can result in true justified knowledge of the universe.
-
...tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
I have a suggestion: wait until May 13th. That's the closest coming new moon, meaning the entire night will not have a moon in the sky. Be careful, though, as that's the time of the month when the moon is out DURING THE DAY. I'm not sure how you feel about "moonlight" when it comes to that. Do you spend half the month nocturnally, and the other half of the month normally? Is "moonlight" not just as apparent when the moon is out during the day?
-
I see people go outside all the time,they seem to be in perfect health.
Also,if its widely known you can provide a link right?
-
I see people go outside all the time,they seem to be in perfect health.
Also,if its widely known you can provide a link right?
The funny part is that it's the Sunlight that does the damage. I can stand in the sun and die. The moon... not so much.
-
I'm really curious about his thoughts on new moons now, the time of the month when the moon is out during the day and is completely absent at night.
-
You have obviously never looked in the night sky because both Globularists and Zeteticists agree about the existence of the Antimoon. It is literally common knowledge and visible to the naked eye, it has been known about since antiquity. You are really making yourself look stupid here by denying it just for the sake of your flawed beliefs, and because - oh no! - it happens to explain an FE phenomenon.
Globularists and Zeteticists vs. The rest of the world; So these cults can see the anti-moon (and apparently it is infront of our faces) but I cannot? I've watched the skys since I was a young lad and never have I been able to infer the existence of an object that "blots" out the stars in the sky. There are people whos jobs require them to arduously search the sky on a daily (nightly?) basis yet no one has ever come across this anti-moon or even noticed an inconsistency that would indicate the existance of a dark mobile object.
So please, if it is so obvious that this thing exists, take a picture and show us. Shouldn't take you more than a few minutes since you've "shown" us that you can easily find it. Don't you think you could convince us easier just by proving it right here and now? Actually this leads me to another question. If your cults are so adamant about the existence of the anti-moon, why have none of them captured a photograph of it? In fact, why is there no proof what-so-ever that there is an anti-moon?
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
Yes. Thermal Detonator is right. And no James, we do not not believe it because it is a "FE phenomenon." We don't believe it because we don't see it when you say it's obvious. And I thought you were going to pinpoint the location of the antimoon?
It is too dangerous outside.
If the antimoon is such a well known topic..... how come wikipedia only has this for antimoon?
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimoon
Why should discrepancies in the content of a freely editable internet encyclopedia be good reason to deny what is plainly true, and widely known? I've noticed that many of our current on-site globularists tend to put their faith in Wikipedia, since presumably they find the rigors of reading actual scientific documents too daunting. Wikipedia is a hotbed of inaccuracy. It is not respected as a source by any academic, globularist or planarist, and for good reason.
I have come to the conclusion based on the scientific method, that it is a shadow.
You have clearly not even bothered to read the very first chapter of our most canonical literature, how presumptous of you. Earth Not a Globe Chapter I: "Zetetic and Theoretic defined and compared". Theoretic Scientific Method is epistemologically bankrupt. Only Zetetic Scientific Method can result in true justified knowledge of the universe.
Ok, I'm going to answer everything in the bold. First of all, I am NOT a globularist or a zeteticist, especially since the spell checker says there are no such words. Secondly, I believe in a flat round earth. Third, I'm pretty sure you can spend $200. If you can't, want us to pitch in? We'll be glad to, even though you are a crazy-minded werewolf who believes in a round flat Earth. Fourth of all, prove the moon's rays are harmful, with some up-to-date references. 5th, you are mad already, so yeah... 6th, sure, its too dangerous to go outside anytime. You could get robbed, mugged, or murdered. 2012 could happen early, or you could abducted by aliens. You could get hit by a solar flare (oh wait, that's for the RET), etc. etc. Seventh of all, I want to take a quote from you. "Why should discrepancies in the content of a freely editable internet encyclopedia be good reason to deny what is plainly true, and widely known?" I just love this. Why should the FE'ers link to the Flat Earth Society Wiki for proof? Doesn't that just not help? At all? Because it is bias? And it is the same website? And if it is plainly true, why haven't I heard of any of this CRAP before I joined the Flat Earth Society?
So what do you have to say now, James?
-
If the antimoon is such a well known topic..... how come wikipedia only has this for antimoon?
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimoon
Why should discrepancies in the content of a freely editable internet encyclopedia be good reason to deny what is plainly true, and widely known?
Because it was honestly the only thing I could find that was about a "antimoon" besides a website advertising to help me learn English and a someone pleased that Obama has stoped a project to return to the Moon. Indeed, what are these articles you talk about, in which globlarists say they believe in the antimoon?
-
The moon has harmful rays?
I have camped out under the stars my whole youth and still do today.
Harmful? Yes if you are a werewolf and only to your victims.
What a joke. I believe in a round not spherical earth and to have you say the moons rays are so harmful you will not take a photograph just goes to show you are another hate monger who is here only to mock us who truly believe.
Go away James!
To the people who truly believe how do we get people like this banned?
-
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
I'm not angry at anyone. I enforce when someone habitually posts low content posts. He has been warned and banned about this in the past and the forums are constantly getting worse and worse. As Jack says though, lets keep it on topic.
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
Don't act like that wasn't an act of anger... it's obvious.
He makes structured posts all the time; more than most people, in fact.
And just so the hand of communism does not come down on me, I'll stay on topic.
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
I am neither. I don't associate myself with any groups, cults or religions. I believe the Earth is a sphere for reasons obviously above you.
A. I am not requiring you to do anything, I was asking you politely to make your life easier by showing us proof instead of leading a wild goose chase
B. Get a friggen' camera, it's 2010.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
E. You already are mad, blind and all of those other things.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
-
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
I'm not angry at anyone. I enforce when someone habitually posts low content posts. He has been warned and banned about this in the past and the forums are constantly getting worse and worse. As Jack says though, lets keep it on topic.
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
Don't act like that wasn't an act of anger... it's obvious.
He makes structured posts all the time; more than most people, in fact.
And just so the hand of communism does not come down on me, I'll stay on topic.
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
I am neither. I don't associate myself with any groups, cults or religions. I believe the Earth is a sphere for reasons obviously above you.
A. I am not requiring you to do anything, I was asking you politely to make your life easier by showing us proof instead of leading a wild goose chase
B. Get a friggen' camera, it's 2010.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
E. You already are mad, blind and all of those other things.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
Besides the last one, everything you said was THE SAME SHIT I SAID. Not saying it was bad, just saying maybe you didn't read? ??? But really, I think everyone besides James has gone out in the moonlight, because everyone besides James aren't werewolves.
-
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
I'm not angry at anyone. I enforce when someone habitually posts low content posts. He has been warned and banned about this in the past and the forums are constantly getting worse and worse. As Jack says though, lets keep it on topic.
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
Don't act like that wasn't an act of anger... it's obvious.
He makes structured posts all the time; more than most people, in fact.
And just so the hand of communism does not come down on me, I'll stay on topic.
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
I am neither. I don't associate myself with any groups, cults or religions. I believe the Earth is a sphere for reasons obviously above you.
A. I am not requiring you to do anything, I was asking you politely to make your life easier by showing us proof instead of leading a wild goose chase
B. Get a friggen' camera, it's 2010.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
E. You already are mad, blind and all of those other things.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
Besides the last one, everything you said was THE SAME SHIT I SAID. Not saying it was bad, just saying maybe you didn't read? ??? But really, I think everyone besides James has gone out in the moonlight, because everyone besides James aren't werewolves.
The man asked me a question, and then some.
I gave him an answer, and then some.
-
You see, John Davis is not angry about him saying lol, he's angry that he's a RE'er. Am I right or am I right?
I'm not angry at anyone. I enforce when someone habitually posts low content posts. He has been warned and banned about this in the past and the forums are constantly getting worse and worse. As Jack says though, lets keep it on topic.
I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.
Don't act like that wasn't an act of anger... it's obvious.
He makes structured posts all the time; more than most people, in fact.
And just so the hand of communism does not come down on me, I'll stay on topic.
Am I right in thinking that you consider yourself neither a globularist nor a zeteticist? What shape do you believe the Earth to be?
With regard to your request, I don't see why I should be required to do so when a) I don't have a digital camera, b) I do not as a general rule wish to expose myself to the Moon's harmful rays and c) tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
Why can't you just go outside and look for it? Why haven't you already seen it, many times? I have to doubt your claim that you have been looking at the sky so often.
I am neither. I don't associate myself with any groups, cults or religions. I believe the Earth is a sphere for reasons obviously above you.
A. I am not requiring you to do anything, I was asking you politely to make your life easier by showing us proof instead of leading a wild goose chase
B. Get a friggen' camera, it's 2010.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
E. You already are mad, blind and all of those other things.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
Besides the last one, everything you said was THE SAME SHIT I SAID. Not saying it was bad, just saying maybe you didn't read? ??? But really, I think everyone besides James has gone out in the moonlight, because everyone besides James aren't werewolves.
The man asked me a question, and then some.
I gave him an answer, and then some.
lol. but where is he? isnt he like supposed to like prove us like wrong like?
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
-
tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
¿How many people do you know wich has gone blind or mad due to moonlight? ¿Do you know the millions of people that daily expose themselves to moonlight and nothing happens to them?
-
I have a suggestion: wait until May 13th. That's the closest coming new moon, meaning the entire night will not have a moon in the sky. Be careful, though, as that's the time of the month when the moon is out DURING THE DAY. I'm not sure how you feel about "moonlight" when it comes to that. Do you spend half the month nocturnally, and the other half of the month normally? Is "moonlight" not just as apparent when the moon is out during the day?
When the Moon is out during the day, you should simply be careful to shield your face from the Moon and avoid prolonged exposure. The Sun's rays cancel some of the deleterous effects of Moonlight.
Third, I'm pretty sure you can spend $200. If you can't, want us to pitch in? We'll be glad to, even though you are a crazy-minded werewolf who believes in a round flat Earth.
Excellent, I look forward to having a digital camera, as it is certainly something which I need to continue my study. I'm in the UK, so I don't think you'll be able to send me a cheque in dollars. Can we set up a Money Order instead?
Fourth of all, prove the moon's rays are harmful, with some up-to-date references. 5th, you are mad already, so yeah... 6th, sure, its too dangerous to go outside anytime. You could get robbed, mugged, or murdered.
I know of two peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, complete with data, which show that my claims about Moonlight are completely correct:
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.
Do you have experimental data which contradicts their findings? If so, I suggest you contact the British Medical Journal and have it published!!!
And if it is plainly true, why haven't I heard of any of this CRAP before I joined the Flat Earth Society?
Because you are clearly rather ignorant when it comes to scientific matters.
B. Get a friggen' camera, it's 2010.
Rahimz has agreed to buy me one. Once he sends me the money, I will attempt to photograph the Antimoon if you wish.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
What do you make of the studies I have cited above? They contain a large amount of experimental data which indicates that you are completely incorrect on this issue. How do you propose to argue your case against them?
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
As I said, it has been scientifically proven that Moonlight has these effects. If you have sufficient evidence to back up your seemingly antiscientific claims, I suggest you submit it promptly the the BMJ for peer-review.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
The fact that you've never noticed the third largest celestial body in the night sky has something to do with it.
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
-
tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.
¿How many people do you know wich has gone blind or mad due to moonlight? ¿Do you know the millions of people that daily expose themselves to moonlight and nothing happens to them?
-
When the Moon is out during the day, you should simply be careful to shield your face from the Moon and avoid prolonged exposure. The Sun's rays cancel some of the deleterous effects of Moonlight.
You're just making this up as you go along, huh?
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Source?
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
What the "no sleeping on Deck" bit?
I thought that was because if you fell off at night (like via sleep walking or rough weather) it would be very hard to find you at night vs the day.
-
I have a suggestion: wait until May 13th. That's the closest coming new moon, meaning the entire night will not have a moon in the sky. Be careful, though, as that's the time of the month when the moon is out DURING THE DAY. I'm not sure how you feel about "moonlight" when it comes to that. Do you spend half the month nocturnally, and the other half of the month normally? Is "moonlight" not just as apparent when the moon is out during the day?
When the Moon is out during the day, you should simply be careful to shield your face from the Moon and avoid prolonged exposure. The Sun's rays cancel some of the deleterous effects of Moonlight.
No, this is obviously made up. Show me some articles that back any of this hogwash up.
Fourth of all, prove the moon's rays are harmful, with some up-to-date references. 5th, you are mad already, so yeah... 6th, sure, its too dangerous to go outside anytime. You could get robbed, mugged, or murdered.
I know of two peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, complete with data, which show that my claims about Moonlight are completely correct:
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.
Do you have experimental data which contradicts their findings? If so, I suggest you contact the British Medical Journal and have it published!!!
Do you know what false correlation is? On your first article "Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon?"
Maybe there are more bites because more people "night" hike and take walks during a full moon... reason being, there is ample light to see! This study PROVES/SHOWS NOTHING! The lack of consideration for the previous statement is all I need to see this.
To your second article "Full Moon And Crime."
From the article itself:
"The increased incidence of crimes on full moon days may be due to "human tidal waves" caused by the gravitational pull of the moon."
NOT DEATH BEAMS
Let's make it clear... even though it may sound like I don't... I actually do believe that during a full moon increased aggression is a side-effect (I was just showing my point with my response to your first article). Not because of moon rays, but because of 2 things.
1... gravity (the 2nd article supports this, thanks for finding my source)
and
2... it is common for people to believe that aggression will increase during a full moon, therefore it will... it is similar to the observation that was made when thousands of people collectively meditated and processed thoughts of peace/non-violence and the crime rate in the area that they mediated significantly dropped. If I can find the article I'll post it. I also understand that this could be subject to false correlation, but it is my personal belief that a collective mindset can resonate literally.
C. The moon does not emit harmful rays... don't even say another word about that hogwash. What the hell are you doing walking around in the day time if you are so afraid of harmful energy rays?
What do you make of the studies I have cited above? They contain a large amount of experimental data which indicates that you are completely incorrect on this issue. How do you propose to argue your case against them?
No my friend, you have interpreted the conclusion of the articles incorrectly. It states nothing of harmful rays, it only mentions an observed correlation. Absolutely no BS about moon rays.
D. Where the hell are you going where you are going to get bitten by deranged animals?! Where the hell are you going where you are going to get mugged?!! Do you have a PORCH or a BACKYARD?
As I said, it has been scientifically proven that Moonlight has these effects. If you have sufficient evidence to back up your seemingly antiscientific claims, I suggest you submit it promptly the the BMJ for peer-review.
No again dumb dumb. I had implied that you were afraid to walk outside of your house/apartment/shack to photograph the anti-fake because of your fear of rabid animals and muggers. I then asked where the hell you live where you are going to get mugged in your backyard or on your porch.
F. I can't believe your last statement... what the hell gives you the indication that I do not view the stars as much as I say I do? Because I don't see your fake anti-stupid-invisible-but-apparently-obvious-moon?!!!!? Listen, I've watched the stars all of my life, I seriously doubt you even peak at the sky since you're so damn afraid of the moon death beams.
The fact that you've never noticed the third largest celestial body in the night sky has something to do with it.
Where do you live? Have you been to flagstaff before? (this is relevant)
I have a profound interest in the cosmos... I watch the evening and night sky every single day, ok?
I can name most stars and constellations in the sky (northern hemisphere); I've watched them rise, and I've watched them set. I've witnessed countless satellites and countless occurences of the ISS space station passing overhead. I've tracked the movement of the planets, I watch every single meteor shower (still unexplained by FE by the way) and I've operated a multitude of telescopes and visited many observatories (Kitt Peak, Mount Graham, Lowell for instance). The damn list goes on, but my point is, you are the ignorant one. You don't know shit about the cosmos/sky, you're a nut, and your anti-fake DOES NOT EXIST.
That fact that you do see this means you need to stop taking LSD or find a new dealer... jesus...
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
Ok, this just proves that the antimoon doesn't exist. thanks, john davis, now i dont have to buy a camera or wire money
-
I see people go outside all the time,they seem to be in perfect health.
Also,if its widely known you can provide a link right?
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
Ok, this just proves that the antimoon doesn't exist. thanks, john davis, now i dont have to buy a camera or wire money
My beliefs prove that the antimoon doesn't exist?
::)
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Its common knowledge that the earth is round. Several nations even built space agencies using that premise. So much for common knowledge.
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Its common knowledge that the earth is round. Several nations even built space agencies using that premise. So much for common knowledge.
Indeed! However, what I meant was it should be easily researchable if the poster was interested. I could even go to the used bookstore here (though it is rather large) and find books on the moons effects. Now this doesn't mean they are valid, but it is easy to find the sources.
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Its common knowledge that the earth is round. Several nations even built space agencies using that premise. So much for common knowledge.
Indeed! However, what I meant was it should be easily researchable if the poster was interested. I could even go to the used bookstore here (though it is rather large) and find books on the moons effects. Now this doesn't mean they are valid, but it is easy to find the sources.
From what I've heard, research on the psychological and physiological effects of moonlight have yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest that there is indeed an effect while others are inconclusive.
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Its common knowledge that the earth is round. Several nations even built space agencies using that premise. So much for common knowledge.
Indeed! However, what I meant was it should be easily researchable if the poster was interested. I could even go to the used bookstore here (though it is rather large) and find books on the moons effects. Now this doesn't mean they are valid, but it is easy to find the sources.
From what I've heard, research on the psychological and physiological effects of moonlight have yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest that there is indeed an effect while others are inconclusive.
Yes, we have no negative results yet have inconclusive results and positive results.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
Ok, this just proves that the antimoon doesn't exist. thanks, john davis, now i dont have to buy a camera or wire money
My beliefs prove that the antimoon doesn't exist?
::)
Yep. Because James is having a mental breakdown (he is really a werewolf). And he thinks the antimoon is true and that the moon messes you up
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
My bad, I meant James. Could JAMES please answer the question I've quoted in red, please!?!?!?!
-
James, you claimed that the moon caused blindness or even DEATH, from the title of those books it doesnt appear to invovle that but instead mental degeneration. I would like to see the claims of blindness and death, and if so could you give me a qoute from said sources. Please, of course.
Its common knowledge. The English navy even made regulations concerning it.
Sorry John but James said the mental affects, which I can neither confirm 'nor deny seeing as I have never seen someone go insane. However James said that BLINDNESS OR DEATH can occur. I am neither, nor is anyone else here. I want this link to the English navy making regulations or a source as google has not come up with anything for me.
I dont mean to come off as agressive but this is just becoming nonsense with James, I have no mean to be rude to either of you but its starting to become annoying. :|
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
My bad, I meant James. Could JAMES please answer the question I've quoted in red, please!?!?!?!
1. The Antimoon is a little bigger than the Moon.
2. It does not touch the surface of the Moon as far as we can tell.
3. The Antimoon floats between the Moon and the Earth, blocking visibility to the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse.
4. Their distance has not been calculated, in fact, observation indicates that it is variable.
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
5b. Additionally, since it has been shown that the Moon shines by her own light, a lack of Sunlight would not prevent the Moon from being visible.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
5b. Additionally, since it has been shown that the Moon shines by her own light, a lack of Sunlight would not prevent the Moon from being visible.
You haven't shown anything, it's just another theory of yours.
-
But where is your evidence that this object exists at all? I mean, if it was up there, at some point we would see it, even during the day, just like we can the moon. Either post proof of this object or, just admit you have none.
what happens with eclipses?!
Your post just made me think of another few questions for the FE'ers. I'll number them so you guys don't miss any.
1. What is the size of the antimoon, how far away is it, and exactly how does it cover the sun and moon in an eclipse?
2. Does it touch the surface of the sun or moon?
3. Does it float in front of it?
4. How far apart are they during the eclipse?
5. And how did you figure all this out?
Come on, John! Try answering these 5 questions.
I don't believe in the antimoon and know little about the published theories on it.
My bad, I meant James. Could JAMES please answer the question I've quoted in red, please!?!?!?!
1. The Antimoon is a little bigger than the Moon.
2. It does not touch the surface of the Moon as far as we can tell.
3. The Antimoon floats between the Moon and the Earth, blocking visibility to the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse.
4. Their distance has not been calculated, in fact, observation indicates that it is variable.
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
5b. Additionally, since it has been shown that the Moon shines by her own light, a lack of Sunlight would not prevent the Moon from being visible.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
So you have nothing except what you say.
No links or anything?
I tried searching the internet, I spent an hour looking for such events, the conspiracy must have covered them up.
Pretty poor definition of "well-documented" you have there.
-
I also tried searching, I went through 5 or so pages and multiple variations of daytime lunar eclipse and also tried anti-moon. I have also never seen a daytime lunar eclipse.
I'm sorry but I'm just not finding these.
EDIT:Removed link, it wouldnt work for some reason but it did when I went to it before, it was of a morning hours, (Very early morning) semi-daylight lunar eclipse. However, it did not invovle anti-moon and it wasnt viewable in america I dont believe.
-
I get 404 error on your link.
-
Well thats odd, it worked when I had it. Let me try to fix it.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
I just want to make a note...
The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717.
Care to explain how he RECORDED two incidences 100 years apart? I don't know about you but I find it hard to record something that happened before I was born.
-
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8425/spotlightfail.jpg)
Unless it's a spotlight in two different directions for no reason, which is laughable.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2214/spotlightfail1.jpg)
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
So you have nothing except what you say.
No links or anything?
I tried searching the internet, I spent an hour looking for such events, the conspiracy must have covered them up.
Pretty poor definition of "well-documented" you have there.
You betray your lack of exposure to scientific and academic practises with you refusal to accept data from published works because it can't be linked on the internet. Men of science such as myself have a healthy respect for publications.
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
The Moon shines by its own light. When the Antimoon moves between the Moon and the Earth, the Moon ceases to be visible.
-
The Moon shines by its own light. When the Antimoon moves between the Moon and the Earth, the Moon ceases to be visible.
I'm just going by the explanation provided in the FAQ, which is this thread's subject.
-
The Moon shines by its own light. When the Antimoon moves between the Moon and the Earth, the Moon ceases to be visible.
I'm just going by the explanation provided in the FAQ, which is this thread's subject.
Not all of our knowledge is contained in the FAQ. Like Plato's Republic, some of our more complicated scientific information is too advanced to take in all at once. The FAQ is a starting point, it is not the be all and end all of the truth.
-
Good, you and I both agree the FAQ is completely wrong on at least this point.
-
the sun is a floodlight. at least that is my belief
abnd once again the FAQ was written by a non believer meant to mock Round Disc shaped earth believers
-
If you are sick of the FAQ then you should read Levee's alternative FAQ as well, it is contraversial in our community but it does contain some shocking insights.
-
If you are sick of the FAQ then you should read Levee's alternative FAQ as well, it is contraversial in our community but it does contain some shocking insights.
Where is this alternate FAQ?
-
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8425/spotlightfail.jpg)
Unless it's a spotlight in two different directions for no reason, which is laughable.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2214/spotlightfail1.jpg)
The sun and moon can not be on the same plane. The moon must be below the sun so that a solar eclipse can occur.
-
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8425/spotlightfail.jpg)
Unless it's a spotlight in two different directions for no reason, which is laughable.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2214/spotlightfail1.jpg)
The sun and moon can not be on the same plane. The moon must be below the sun so that a solar eclipse can occur.
Exactly. It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible; most of the time it is due to ill conceived preconceptions about what flat earth theory says due to ignorance or pig-headedness.
-
Exactly. It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible; most of the time it is due to ill conceived preconceptions about what flat earth theory says due to ignorance or pig-headedness.
Whoever said it was to scale? You're missing the point of the illustration, which is to demonstrate that the sun can't be acting as a spotlight. For the antimoon idea to be correct the sun needs to be coincidentally casting light specifically in just two specific directions.
Edit: Also, compass thread.
-
It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible.
Go ahead and correct that drawing. Use a clean napkin.
-
Exactly. It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible; most of the time it is due to ill conceived preconceptions about what flat earth theory says due to ignorance or pig-headedness.
Whoever said it was to scale? You're missing the point of the illustration, which is to demonstrate that the sun can't be acting as a spotlight. For the antimoon idea to be correct the sun needs to be coincidentally casting light specifically in just two specific directions.
No it doesn't, you are being ridiculous. The Sun does not need to, and cannot, shine at the Moon. The Moon is lit by its own light.
-
The Sun does not need to, and cannot, shine at the Moon.
The sun can shine onto the earth but not onto the moon?
Interesting. Go on.
-
No it doesn't, you are being ridiculous. The Sun does not need to, and cannot, shine at the Moon. The Moon is lit by its own light.
So you don't support the FAQ (which is what's being refuted here)? The FAQ makes the claim the antimoon is coming between the sun and the moon and casting a shadow on it. If people didn't like my earlier one, here's a better representation:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5804/douchek.jpg)
-
The Sun does not need to, and cannot, shine at the Moon.
The sun can shine onto the earth but not onto the moon?
Interesting. Go on.
The Sun is flat disc parallel to the Earth. This has been known since the time of ancient Egypt.
-
No it doesn't, you are being ridiculous. The Sun does not need to, and cannot, shine at the Moon. The Moon is lit by its own light.
So you don't support the FAQ (which is what's being refuted here)? The FAQ makes the claim the antimoon is coming between the sun and the moon and casting a shadow on it. If people didn't like my earlier one, here's a better representation:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5804/douchek.jpg)
Your diagram is wrong; the Antimoon comes between the Moon and the Earth during a Lunar Eclipse.
-
Your diagram is wrong; the Antimoon comes between the Moon and the Earth during a Lunar Eclipse.
Not according to the FAQ, which is what's being refuted.
-
The Sun is flat disc parallel to the Earth. This has been known since the time of ancient Egypt.
Of course. I forgot your special brand of FET. Still curious how the moon knows where the sun is. Especially with it being flat and invisible to the moon. Oh well.
Your diagram is wrong; the Antimoon comes between the Moon and the Earth during a Lunar Eclipse.
Go ahead and draw it out.
-
Your diagram is wrong; the Antimoon comes between the Moon and the Earth during a Lunar Eclipse.
A lunar eclipse doesn't happen all the time, idiot. And can you draw a diagram for us? Because id like to see that.
-
I see people go outside all the time,they seem to be in perfect health.
Also,if its widely known you can provide a link right?
Link plx.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
It wouldn't need to emit any light to be seen in the daylight. I 32 mile wide dark circle would show up just fine in the daylight, well, it would if it existed.
And, no, people do not see two objects during a lunar eclipse. They see one object, with a shadow being cast on it. But you missed my point, I said you would see two DISTINCT objects. The sphere that is the moon, and a second object floating in front of it. Some people would even be able to see a gap between the moon and the supposed "antimoon".
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
How come this is the only crap I found? http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm Which looks pretty suspicious. And thanks for giving us like, 2 references to Daytime Lunar Eclipses.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
How come this is the only crap I found? http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm Which looks pretty suspicious. And thanks for giving us like, 2 references to Daytime Lunar Eclipses.
Do you not trust those?
-
Do you not trust those?
Nope. Because the picture on the absolute bottom and the one above it have different backgrounds. And the grammar on that website is... well...
-
Do you not trust those?
Nope. Because the picture on the absolute bottom and the one above it have different backgrounds. And the grammar on that website is... well...
Is Tycho Brahe a good enough source for you? He was known, among other things, for documenting them.
-
Wait, I'm still not getting this antimoon business. Why would it never happen in broad daylight? Why only at night or (depending on where you are on the GLOBE) have tiny hints of it at extreme sunrise or sunset?
-
Wow, the link provides really nice photos. In RE it's fully explainable....
-
Is Tycho Brahe a good enough source for you? He was known, among other things, for documenting them.
Have there been no daylight lunar eclipses since the 16th century? For shame.
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
One more. Why has it never been observed in the daylight? We see the moon during the day all the time. Why not the anitmoon?
It has never been observed in the daylight (except during Lunar eclipses!) because it does not emit its own light, like the Moon does. For this reason it is only visible when it passes in front of the Moon.
Also, here's where I'm going to shoot a giant hole in your little piece of BS here. See, if there were two objects in the sky during an eclipse, an event that is frequently observed and photographed, then people would see two objects. Especially since the FE model says that the moon is 3000 miles above the Earth, that puts the "antimoon" at a lower altitude. If you don't believe that people would see two objects, try this. Put an object of your choosing on a table, if you don't own a table, just use your floor. Now, put another object of similar size and shape in front of the first one. Now, look at them from different angles. You'll notice, at some point, you can even see in between the two. Since an object floating in front of the moon, has NEVER been documented, your antimoon is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
People do see two objects. This is precisely why the Moon becomes invisible during a Lunar eclipse.
How come this is the only crap I found? http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm Which looks pretty suspicious. And thanks for giving us like, 2 references to Daytime Lunar Eclipses.
Do you not trust those?
That last link is actually legit looking but as we said, Lunar Eclipses are possible during sunrise and sunset which is what those pics were taken that.
Also, the reason this is viewable at daytime is even on the website itself. :|
"The more the closer the object is to the horizon. At the time of sunset the solar disk is lifted about 30arc minutes (about it's own diameter). Also if one observes from a very high mountain the apparent horizon is somewhat lower as we observe a bit around the curvature of the earth. "
Website:http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm
-
What I don't get is why during a total lunar eclipse, you can see the moon in red during totality.
The antimoon must be shaped like a doughnut, with the center being some sort of red film-like substance.
-
It is common knowledge that exposure to the Moon can cause blindness and even death.
I was gonna come back to these forums...Now i think i'll gvie it some more time.
-
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8425/spotlightfail.jpg)
Unless it's a spotlight in two different directions for no reason, which is laughable.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2214/spotlightfail1.jpg)
The sun and moon can not be on the same plane. The moon must be below the sun so that a solar eclipse can occur.
Exactly. It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible; most of the time it is due to ill conceived preconceptions about what flat earth theory says due to ignorance or pig-headedness.
I'm actually dealing with this problem myself in another thread. REers are just hopelessly stubborn.
-
I'm actually dealing with this problem myself in another thread. REers are just hopelessly stubborn.
The spotlight problem or the antimoon problem?
-
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.
Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.
Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.
OK I'm back, hear me hear me. This "daylight eclipse" stuff. It's quite simple.
Firstly, since Mad James is unaware that EVERY lunar eclipse can be a "daylight" one, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of lunar eclipses straight off the bat. Lunar eclipses are visible anywhere in the world where the Moon is above the horizon at the time of the eclipse. Just like with the Sun, when the Moon is full there is somewhere in the world where it's setting and somewhere else where it's rising. When it's right close to the horizon there is a refractive effect which makes it appear a few degrees higher than it really is, and thus the Moon can be seen above the horizon while the Sun also is on the opposite side of the sky (don't forget the Sun is being refracted up slightly too.) Anywhere in the world where the eclipse happens as the Moon is resting on the horizon will be seen as a "daylight" eclipse.
They do NOT occur in the middle of the day in broad daylight as Mad James would have us believe.
There is no antimoon.
-
Correct, and let's not forget its the fact that it's close to the horizon that also accounts for the red color it sometimes has. A few FEers have been talking about the "red moon" like we don't know what causes it.
-
Correct, and let's not forget its the fact that it's close to the horizon that also accounts for the red color it sometimes has. A few FEers have been talking about the "red moon" like we don't know what causes it.
Lunar eclipses often look red wherever in the sky they are as the light is reddened by the earth's atmosphere before reaching the Moon. Large scale volcanic activity round the time of an eclipse tends to produce a redder effect, although Mad James would just say this was coincidence.
Incidentally, the Antimoon has no explanation for why there is a Penumbra.
-
Wouldn't the Anti-moon be easily detectable using ground based radio telescopes?
-
Wouldn't the Anti-moon be easily detectable using ground based radio telescopes?
Yes.
-
If the sun and moon are spotlights, the FAQ idea of the "antimoon" passing between them to create a shadow doesn't make any sense.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8425/spotlightfail.jpg)
Unless it's a spotlight in two different directions for no reason, which is laughable.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2214/spotlightfail1.jpg)
The sun and moon can not be on the same plane. The moon must be below the sun so that a solar eclipse can occur.
Exactly. It is not uncommon for someone not understanding the theories to post a crudely drawn napkin drawing that "proves" fet is impossible; most of the time it is due to ill conceived preconceptions about what flat earth theory says due to ignorance or pig-headedness.
I'm actually dealing with this problem myself in another thread. REers are just hopelessly stubborn.
Not nearly as stubborn as FE'ers. I asked you in that thread, what you thought I meant, but you have yet to respond.
-
Not nearly as stubborn as FE'ers. I asked you in that thread, what you thought I meant, but you have yet to respond.
Sometimes I get bored when I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I decided to give up because it clearly wasn't getting through.
-
Sometimes I get bored when I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I decided to give up because it clearly wasn't getting through.
Then, if your belief matches the FAQ regarding the antimoon, please explain this:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5804/douchek.jpg)
-
Not nearly as stubborn as FE'ers. I asked you in that thread, what you thought I meant, but you have yet to respond.
Sometimes I get bored when I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I decided to give up because it clearly wasn't getting through.
Perhaps your explanations are inadequate.
-
Not nearly as stubborn as FE'ers. I asked you in that thread, what you thought I meant, but you have yet to respond.
Sometimes I get bored when I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I decided to give up because it clearly wasn't getting through.
Perhaps your explanations are inadequate.
I agree. And with the anti-moon... if you could detect it via radio signals, how come no one has seen it?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
I've studied the sky carefully. I went to Earth Science. They taught us about the sky a little, and we had to look up at the sky to find Polaris and some major constellations. Nowhere did I find a black spot in the sky.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
I've studied the sky carefully. I went to Earth Science. They taught us about the sky a little, and we had to look up at the sky to find Polaris and some major constellations. Nowhere did I find a black spot in the sky.
Earth Science sounds like a hotbed of globularist lies. You should study the sky independently. Do not allow the brainwashing effects of the conspiracy to guide your investigations.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
I've studied the sky carefully. I went to Earth Science. They taught us about the sky a little, and we had to look up at the sky to find Polaris and some major constellations. Nowhere did I find a black spot in the sky.
Earth Science sounds like a hotbed of globularist lies. You should study the sky independently. Do not allow the brainwashing effects of the conspiracy to guide your investigations.
I wasn't with them when I looked at the sky... They don't brainwash people. But you attempt to.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Thats like me saying"I have seen the unicorn rainbow planet.The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough."
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
-
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
(http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3290/antimoonretards.jpg)
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
Well considering you have stated you have observed it.... you must have a way to tell and be able to project its course. Or are you just admitting the only reason why you believe the antimoon exists is because its needed for your theory to work and have no evidence?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
Because they can look for themselves. If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
Nobody said that the antimoon looks different from a patch of empty sky. We're saying no one's seen any of the sort.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
Because they can look for themselves. If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
No, because Stephen Hawking sucks. And he would have to show proof. ;D
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
Because they can look for themselves. If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
I can use a number line to prove that its wrong.
I however,can not see stars as it is in New York.All the other times where i have been out of the country i haven't seen any patch of sky that didn't have stars in it.
Again,why would anyone believe it exisits without a 3rd party source?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
Because they can look for themselves. If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
I can use a number line to prove that its wrong.
I however,can not see stars as it is in New York.All the other times where i have been out of the country i haven't seen any patch of sky that didn't have stars in it.
Again,why would anyone believe it exisits without a 3rd party source?
Why would anyone believe that 2+2=5? Or that 1+1= the oneness of one?
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
Ya' know there are these magical new devices called "Cameras" that might help support your case. You might even be able to tell me how the "antimoon" has failed to be shown, explained, or proven considering that a signifcant portion of the night sky would be covered up and somebody - somewhere would notice. Considering the ancient Greeks took the time to make up the constellations -and not reference anything like an "antimoon," I must either label you foolish.... or a troll.
How would a photograph of the Antimoon look different from a photograph of a patch of empty sky?
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
James, you are IGNORING the FACT that the people who study the sky most carefully - professional and amateur astronomers, William Herschel, Patrick Moore, Clyde Tombaugh, David Malin and countless others - not a single one of these has EVER reported seeing anything resembling this object, yet they managed to pick out tiny, dim objects invisible to the naked eye such as several hundred asteroids, Pluto, Eris and so on. Yet they all miss, without exception, a black disc the size of the Moon blotting out the stars as it travels across the sky.
You'd make me laugh if I didn't worry you really believed your own tales.
Then it shows that they have not, in fact, been as observant as you appear to believe (or that they are globular fundamentalists, or both).
So your basically saying they are all wrong and that you are right,despite lack of a third party source.
Pray tell,why should anyone on this site believe you?
Because they can look for themselves. If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
When you can provide a mathematical model or any model really for someone to find the Anti-moon on any given day at any given location on Earth let me know. Until then, you're delusional.
-
I'll give you another group a EXTREMELY observant people who are constantly watching the sky at night. UFO hunters. These guys are always looking for something out of place in the sky. If anyone would have seen the antimoon, they would have. So James, I say either post a picture of the fucking antimoon, or admit you are making it up. Take your pick.
-
Pictures aren't admissible as evidence here, but I would settle for a prediction of when and where in the sky I could see this "antimoon" from my location, and if I could go out and see it myself, I would be convinced.
So James, do you have such a prediction?
-
I predict he'll get into another ranting rave about how dangerous moonlight is, and how he'd have to be crazy to expose himself to it long enough to make any such measurements.
-
I predict he'll get into another ranting rave about how dangerous moonlight is, and how he'd have to be crazy to expose himself to it long enough to make any such measurements.
Oh yeah, the moon is really dangerous. Please, I'm more worried about getting hit by a brick flung out of an airplane than the "hazardous" effects from moonlight.
-
You wouldn't even need to go out and look at it to develop a theoretical framework for how it moves. Exposure is not strictly necessary to make predictions on when and where you can see it.
-
I predict he'll get into another ranting rave about how dangerous moonlight is, and how he'd have to be crazy to expose himself to it long enough to make any such measurements.
Oh yeah, the moon is really dangerous. Please, I more worried about getting hit by a brick flung out of an airplane than the "hazardous" effects from moonlight.
I have a theory.
What if James is confusing the Moon with the Sun? After all, we know prolonged exposure to sunlight is dangerous and deadly to humans.
-
I predict he'll get into another ranting rave about how dangerous moonlight is, and how he'd have to be crazy to expose himself to it long enough to make any such measurements.
Oh yeah, the moon is really dangerous. Please, I more worried about getting hit by a brick flung out of an airplane than the "hazardous" effects from moonlight.
I have a theory.
What if James is confusing the Moon with the Sun? After all, we know prolonged exposure to sunlight is dangerous and deadly to humans.
He's confusing a fiery,yellow ball that burns the eyes with a cool, white orb that lights up certain nights? Nobody is that stupid man. Wait...... he's not that stupid.
-
If Stephen Hawking told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?
This shows the difference between Scientists and your good self James. Hawking would tell us that but would also demonstrate proof that it was the case. You just trot out garbage and go "Im right, everyone else is wrong" and expect us to believe it.
-
I have seen it. The only reason you have not seen it is because you have not studied the sky carefully enough.
How did you survive being exposed to the moon's deadly rays of death?