"Star-trails"

1. Why are "star-trails" perfectly circular?

North Pole =
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051220.html

South Pole =
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060915.html

If the stars existed on a flat disc (or discs) rotating above a flat Earth, wouldn't perspective turn the star-trails into elipses (unless you were right under the axis)?

2. And why do the stars rotate in different directions if you are looking at the North or South "Celestial Poles"?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

One disc of stars rotating around the North Pole of a Flat Earth wouldn't create that effect.

3. And also, why are star-trails at the "celestial equator" straight lines?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

Again, no rotating disc of stars over-head could produce such a pattern.

And if there were "multiple, counter-rotating star systems" up there in the Flat-Earth sky, how come you never see areas of black (no stars) in between them?

The night sky would appear to me to be one big (apparent) sphere surrounding our spherical Earth.

This question was up for ages on the .net site but it never received a proper answer.

(The .net site has also now gone off-line, hence the posting here.)

But it did receive a proper answer, wait till that site goes back online.

1. Why are "star-trails" perfectly circular?

North Pole =
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051220.html

And before anyone says that those photos are all produced - i.e. faked - by NASA who are the leaders of "The Great Round-Earth Conspiracy" ...

Plenty of amateur astronomers produce pictures of circular star-trails too with nothing more than a digital camera:

http://www.startrails.de/html/software.html

But it did receive a proper answer, wait till that site goes back online.

Was that the answer that quoted "The Book Of Enoch"; an Ancient Jewish text that talks about stars in non-polar orbits?

If so that's just not good enough - I need photographic evidence of those non-polar orbits, or at least a decent sketch so that I can go out and verify the results for myself.

Edit: I asked the poster for such evidence, but none was forthcoming after three weeks.

Let's also not forget that the Ancienct Jews also gave use "The Book Of Genesis" wherein God creates day-light (Day One; Chapter 1, Verses 3 & 4) before He creates The Sun (Day Four; Chapter 1, Verses 16 to 19); something which makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

The star-trails photos ARE NOT fake, we all know that, 3Tesla.

Let us wait until that site comes back to life; a simple link will answer your questions.

In the first day, there was created the BLACK SUN, which produces aether; this Black Sun is the cause of the solar eclipse, ancient civilizations worshipped the Black Sun, which was the star Sirius C, its orbit takes it beyond Antichtone, the continent which lies beyond the island of Atlantis (Antarctica, that is). Its shape is that of a disk, and has the same diameter as the visible Sun.

The visible sun, or the Sun of Gold, receives the black light (actually very dark violet) and transforms it into visible light.

Let us wait until that site comes back to life; a simple link will answer your questions.

Why can't you just re-post the link here?

After all, there are far more people using this site who can debate its merits.

In the first day, there was created the BLACK SUN, which produces aether; this Black Sun is the cause of the solar eclipse

It is a widely held, and well-evidenced fact that solar eclipses are caused by the Earth's moon passing in front of The Sun.

As shown in this photo which shows the Sun's corona along with the surface of the Moon which is facing The Earth:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080808.html

A thorough examination of the major cosmogonies of ancient civilizations will reveal that they describe one thing in particular: the tremendous cosmic cataclysm which took place 5.800 years ago, in which what was then known as Sirius A (present day Sirius C), in the form of a disk, was split in two halves, one half causing the lunar eclipse (the transparent half), the other half causing the solar eclipse.

I urge all of you to study the paradoxes of the origin of the Moon:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/moon-paradox-moon-eclipse-t52.htm

"Widely held" does not mean correct; and it is not well-evidenced at all that the Moon causes the solar eclipse, it would be more of a miracle than a scientific fact.

Do you know who invented the actual distances and sizes of the Sun/Moon during the eclipses? Yes, none other than Yajnavalkya, the leader of the Surya Yoga sect, dedicated to Sun worship:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/moon-paradox-moon-eclipse-t52.htm#420

Your photograph actually shows the Black Sun, not the Moon.

The complete demonstration that the Earth could not cause the lunar eclipse:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/moon-paradox-moon-eclipse-t52.htm#421
http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/moon-paradox-moon-eclipse-t52.htm#422
http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/moon-paradox-moon-eclipse-t52.htm#423

The Sun could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

12. Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

13. If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

THE VELOCITY OF THE AXIAL ROTATION OF THE SUN AT THE TIME THE PLANETARY SYSTEM WAS BUILT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE BANDS OF MATTER TO BREAK AWAY.

BUT EVEN IF THEY HAD BROKEN AWAY, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BALLED INTO GLOBES.

Your photograph actually shows the Black Sun, not the Moon.

Well thank you very much levee for giving me a good laugh!

here's the photo shown my 3 Tesla:


Now here's a picture of the moon:


Ok so here are the same pictures, but I circled the similarities between the pictures:





If you look closely you can see I circled some craters that are similar in both pictures, unless you CAN'T see them. If you can't see it, save the images, open up Paint, and increase the zoom to 200%.


Edit: Yes the craters are difficult to make out without zooming in, so I suggest that! 

A thorough examination of the major cosmogonies of ancient civilizations will reveal that they describe one thing in particular: the tremendous cosmic cataclysm which took place 5.800 years ago, in which what was then known as Sirius A (present day Sirius C), in the form of a disk, was split in two halves, one half causing the lunar eclipse (the transparent half), the other half causing the solar eclipse.

How does that relate to circular star-trails?

THE VELOCITY OF THE AXIAL ROTATION OF THE SUN AT THE TIME THE PLANETARY SYSTEM WAS BUILT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE BANDS OF MATTER TO BREAK AWAY.

BUT EVEN IF THEY HAD BROKEN AWAY, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BALLED INTO GLOBES.

A penchant for typing in capitals - are you Sandokhan from the .net site, perchance?

levee: you can't make up numbers and then go inferring other claims from those figures.

where did you get your light pressure figures from? or your solar pressure figures from? what layer are you talking about?

2. And why do the stars rotate in different directions if you are looking at the North or South "Celestial Poles"?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

One disc of stars rotating around the North Pole of a Flat Earth wouldn't create that effect.

they don't. the picture shows them all rotating in one direction

do FE'ers still believe in a "shadow object" after looking at those pictures?

unless they're "faked" or part of some global conspiracy, or maybe it's just dark matter making those pictures.

1. Why are "star-trails" perfectly circular?

North Pole =
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051220.html

South Pole =
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060915.html

If the stars existed on a flat disc (or discs) rotating above a flat Earth, wouldn't perspective turn the star-trails into elipses (unless you were right under the axis)?

Consider that all Celestial Light bends upwards as so:



It's impossible to look at a star trail as an ellipse. The light from the stars on the far end of the trail would be intersected into the earth.

2. And why do the stars rotate in different directions if you are looking at the North or South "Celestial Poles"?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

One disc of stars rotating around the North Pole of a Flat Earth wouldn't create that effect.

The celestial systems are grinding against each other causing each other to move in opposite directions.

3. And also, why are star-trails at the "celestial equator" straight lines?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

Again, no rotating disc of stars over-head could produce such a pattern.

Because at the equator you are at such a distance from the North Pole that the path of the stars overhead becomes so broad that it approaches a straight line. They're bent, but only slightly.

And if there were "multiple, counter-rotating star systems" up there in the Flat-Earth sky, how come you never see areas of black (no stars) in between them?

Why would there be? There is still water between whirlpools in an ocean isn't there?

that means that apart from the poles, there should be static areas in star trail photography.

why aren't there strong intereractions between the edges of gears? why aren't stars torn exchanged between gears on the edge?

that means that apart from the poles, there should be static areas in star trail photography.

Star trail photographers are specifically looking for good shots of action and movement when they go through their rolls.

You're also assuming that in the areas above the gaps of the celestial disks there aren't other celestial disks moving in the same general direction as the ones below them.

why aren't there strong intereractions between the edges of gears? why aren't stars torn exchanged between gears on the edge?

They've been moving in this fashion for hundreds of years, if not eons. The stars which would have been torn away would be long gone. Now only a stable system exists.

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 10:35:09 PM

that means that apart from the poles, there should be static areas in star trail photography.

Star trail photographers are specifically looking for good shots of action and movement when they go through their rolls.

Tom, I think any shots of static and moving stars together would make a far more interesting photograph, (unless ST photographers are part of The Conspiracy).  As an amatuer photographer I have seen (probably) thousands of star-trails images.  All of them were circular, showing stars moving in a circular geometry (unless a fish eye or panorama was used).

You're also assuming that in the areas above the gaps of the celestial disks there aren't other celestial disks moving in the same general direction as the ones below them.

This would make an even more interesting photograph (rather than one boring circle?).  Again, I have yet to see this (like so much other FE evidence).  -It would be of extreme interest to photographers and scientists alike.

Until you (and your fellow FE) producing strong evidence (e.g. star trails) for these theories, you will struggle win people over.  Like I said, this would be of extreme interest to photographers and scientists, so you may need to get out of your armchair.

Quote

2. And why do the stars rotate in different directions if you are looking at the North or South "Celestial Poles"?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

One disc of stars rotating around the North Pole of a Flat Earth wouldn't create that effect.

they don't. the picture shows them all rotating in one direction

Whilst all of the stars in that picture are moving in the same direction from left to right (Northern Hemisphere) ...

The stars at the bottom left are rotating clockwise ...

And the stars at the top right are rotating anti-clockwise.

That opposite sense motion is what I was referring to.

Edit: add clarifying word.

As an amatuer photographer I have seen (probably) thousands of star-trails images.

I don't give a crap if you've seen "thousands of star-trail images." Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of star-trail images come from either North America, Europe, or Australia.

This would make an even more interesting photograph (rather than one boring circle?).  Again, I have yet to see this (like so much other FE evidence).

Have you navigated to all parts of the world and looked?

Consider that all Celestial Light bends upwards as so:

Bendy light?

Oh how I have missed that over on the .net site!

OK:

My explanation for circular star-trails requires a spherical Earth rotating about an axis set in infinite sky full of stars around it ...

And light that travels in staraight lines. (*)

Whereas your explanation for circular star-trails requires a flat Earth with a flat disc of stars above it which rotates ...

And light which bends in order to distort the elliptical star-trails (they have to be elliptical because of perspective) back into perfect circles.

Your explanation is, therefore, inherently more complicated because it involves non-linear meathematics (I have a sphere and straight lines, wheras you have discs and complex curves like parabolas.)

So firstly my explanation is to be preferred by invoking Occam's Razor ...

And secondly you need to produce some hard mathematics to demonstrate exactly how much your light has to bend in order to distort the ellipses back into perfect circles.

And you have to do that for at least two observers at two different distances away from the stars' axis of rotation.

(*) And please do not try to obfuscate this simple issue by invoking irrelevant issues like dark matter and gravitational lensing. By the time star-light reaches the Earth it is travelling in almost perfect straight lines because there isn't anything large enough in The Solar System to bend it appreciably.

Have you navigated to all parts of the world and looked?

No, Mr. Bishop, the issue here is have you ever been to any part of the World where you can take a photograph to support your hypothesis about counter-rotating, gear-driven star-systems with gaps (black sky) inbetween them.

None of the pictures that I have ever seen support this, so you need to go out and convince me otherwise.

All of the evidence that I can find says you are wrong.

Over to you ...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2009, 02:03:18 AM

Have you navigated to all parts of the world and looked?

No, Mr. Bishop, the issue here is have you ever been to any part of the World where you can take a photograph to support your hypothesis about counter-rotating, gear-driven star-systems with gaps (black sky) inbetween them.

None of the pictures that I have ever seen support this, so you need to go out and convince me otherwise.

All of the evidence that I can find says you are wrong.

Over to you ...

The real issue is whether Tom Bishop will ever stop insulting the whole population of Australia, South America and most of Africa.

The simple fact, surprising only to Tom Bishop and a couple other FE theorists, is that we have telescopes, look at the sky, navigate with and without GPS, construct roads using maps with both longitude, latitude and distances in meters.

We have scientists that would jump at the opportunity of a Nobel Prize by showing that the whole measurements of Earth in the Southern hemisphere do not match, or by showing that the stars swirl in strange ways around unexplainable multiple poles, or that there are unexplainable dark patches of sky above the Southern oceans.

One of Tom Bishop's favorites, James Clarke Ross, was one of such scientists that circumnavigated most of Antarctica from 1841 to 1843. He did it using sextants, clocks and compasses, just as every other navigator of the time, and found the stars exactly where he expected them, and reported nothing about starless patches of sky or multiple swirling patches of stars.

I don't give a crap if you've seen "thousands of star-trail images." Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of star-trail images come from either North America, Europe, or Australia.

You missed south America and South Africa (their are plenty examples on the net).  And Antarctica.

The reality is that thousands of independently captured star-trail photographs from around the earth are stronger evidence than zero photographs of "celestial gears".  You fail (until you can provide evidence).

Have you navigated to all parts of the world and looked?

No.  This is the "God exists because you haven't looked hard enough" argument coming back I see. 

skeptic, your efforts are very nice, but even with a zoom your enchanting similarities between the two photographs just ain't there.


North Circumpolar Constellations:

http://www.coldwater.k12.mi.us/lms/planetarium/myth/ncircum.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/images/starmaps/map_1_large_jpg_image.html

South Circumpolar Constellations:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/Constellations/south_constellations.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/images/starmaps/map_6_large_jpg_image.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/Constellations/spring/crux.html

Regular orbits (Southern Sky):

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/images/starmaps/map_2_large_jpg_image.html

Regular orbits (Northern Sky):

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/images/starmaps/map_5_large_jpg_image.html

In antiquity, there was a clear difference between the stars which rotate endlessly above the North Pole/South Pole, and THE REST of the stars, which do rise in the east, and set in the west.

Let us read from the book of Enoch:

Cap. 18

I likewise beheld terrestrial fountains, deep in the fiery columns of heaven.

13And in the columns of heaven I beheld fires, which descended without number, but neither on high, nor into the deep. Over these fountains also I perceived a place which had neither the firmament of heaven above it, nor the solid ground underneath it; neither was there water above it; nor anything on wing; but the spot was desolate.

14And there I beheld seven stars, like great blazing mountains, and like spirits entreating me.

15Then the angel said, This place, until the consummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison of the stars, and the host of heaven.

16The stars which roll over fire are those which transgressed the commandment of God before their time arrived; for they came not in their proper season. Therefore was He offended with them, and bound them, until the period of the consummation of their crimes in the secret year.

Cap. 21

Then I made a circuit to a place in which nothing was completed.

2And there I beheld neither the tremendous workmanship of an exalted heaven, nor of an established earth, but a desolate spot, prepared, and terrific.

3There, too, I beheld seven stars of heaven bound in it together, like great mountains, and like a blazing fire. I exclaimed, For what species of crime have they been bound, and why have they been removed to this place? Then Uriel, one of the holy angels who was with me, and who conducted me, answered: Enoch, wherefore do you ask; wherefore do you reason with yourself, and anxiously inquire? These are those of the stars which have transgressed the commandment of the most high God; and are here bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be completed.

A clear description of the Big Dipper...

And this fact is shown in these ancient documents if we read carefully:

Just as it with the movements of small ants, on a potters wheel turning around, is sure that due to their changing locations there is a different experience, so too is that relative to Meru and Dhruvaloka [the central heap of stars and the galaxy center]: with the stars, that go around with the great wheel of time, they are located at the right, but of the individual motions by the planets lead by the sun upon that spinning wheel of time, is the movement to the stars and signs for sure observed differently.


Have you ever heard of simultaneous lunar/solar eclipses?

Plinius Secundus in the Chapter XIII, Of Eclipses, in his SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE:

Also that the Sunne and Moone twice in thirtie daies were darkened above the earth: howbeit seene this was not equally in all quarters, but of divers men in divers places: and that which maketh mee to marvell most of all in this wonder, is this, that when agreed it is by all, that the Moone light is dimmed by the shaddow of the earth, one while this eclipse happeneth in the West, and another while in the East: as also, by what reason it happened, that seeing after the Sunne is up, that shaddow which dusketh the light of the Moone, must needs be under the earth: it fell out once, that the Moone was eclipsed in the West, and both planets to be seen above the ground in our horison. For that in twelve daies both these lights were missing, and neither Sun nor Moone were seene: it chaunced in our time, when both the Vespasians (Emperors) were Consuls, the father the third time, and the son the second.

(Now, Plinius does not realize that, the Moon could not be dimmed by the shadow of the Earth, given that BOTH eclipses happened at the same time)



From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

From Columbus words is clear that double eclipses were also known to the king and to the queen.


On a flat earth model, which must take into account the Book of Enoch, these star trails are very easy to explain, as I have shown above.

That the Earth is indeed flat, there should be no doubt about it.

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meter curvature, absolutely nonexistent, completely flat surface of the lake:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/chapstickaddict/698091630/

skeptic, your efforts are very nice, but even with a zoom your enchanting similarities between the two photographs just ain't there.

I see some Flat Earth believers are not blinded only by their beliefs, but sometimes they're blind in the litteral sense of the word. 

Try looking at the upper sploch I made. Try opening your eyes this time, you might see better.

Wishful thinking, sometimes, does improve the eyesight; in your case, for sure.

skeptik, I understand your concern, but there is no way to explain the presence of the Moon in the sky; not by capture, not by collision, not by any other argument; please read again the historical descriptions of the simultaneous lunar/solar eclipses, they cannot be denied.

Please explain to us, how, in your book, our solar planetary system got started; do you enjoy the big bang or the superstring theory?

Do some homework and you will reach, very soon, the interesting conclusion that there is no way to explain the presence of a spherical sun (and you have omitted to read what I wrote, the fact that we could not have a spherical sun in the first place; and yes, the figures given about the atmospheric pressure are correct), rings of matter could not have balled into globes, heavy metals from the core could not have travelled to the crust, except by explosion, which must have been followed immediately by a cooling process, there is no way to explain the appearance of aminoacids in any kind of primordial soup (left handed aminoacids could not be produced).

skeptic, your efforts are very nice, but even with a zoom your enchanting similarities between the two photographs just ain't there.

Here are the eclipse and Moon pictures, but with some gamma correction applied to the former to sharpen the contrast:



The shape of the dark patches (seas/marea) are *clearly* the same in the two pictures, IMHO.

Edit: you can also see the small, but bright impact crater at the bottom in both images, too.

Actually, make that two impact craters (circled below).

So that's two people who say it's The Moon in both pictures versus one who says it isn't.

What does everyone else think?

The real issue is whether Tom Bishop will ever stop insulting the whole population of Australia, South America and most of Africa.

The simple fact, surprising only to Tom Bishop and a couple other FE theorists, is that we have telescopes, look at the sky, navigate with and without GPS, construct roads using maps with both longitude, latitude and distances in meters.

On the .net site I recall he once called Chile a Third-World country.

I then pointed out that it has several universities and a number of very good telescopes - not as 'backward' as he would like to think!

Let us read from the book of Enoch:

As I said at the top of the thread: please show me a picture or a sketch to support this.

No evidence = no belief.

That's how science works.

3Tesla, your enthusiasm would be better spent elsewhere...here you fail to understand that, given the fact that there is no attractive gravitation (and you already know the quotes from Newton himself, and the demonstration given, which I could bring here again), your three body system, Sun/Moon/Earth cannot be explained scientifically.

And a space-time continuum (which I have demonstrated too that it is a hoax, again, I can bring the proofs here, but you all already know them) means a pressure type of gravitation, which can only function on a flat surface, in order to explain the fact that oceans stick to the crust and we are still able to walk or for clouds to pass by, given a pressure (from space time or from the aether).

How do you explain, 3 Tesla, this three body system? You cannot use attractive gravitation (only a hypothesis, absolutely false), and you cannot make use of string theory, pressure type of gravitation will work only on a flat surface.

There are plenty of pictures taken of the eclipse, which show no resemblance whatsoever between the heavenly body known as the
Black Sun and the Moon; http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080807.html , http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050506.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010408.html

The above picture is a combination of twenty-two photographs that were digitally processed to highlight faint features of a total eclipe that occurred in August of 1999. The outer pictures of the Sun's corona were digitally altered to enhance dim, outlying waves and filaments. The inner pictures of the usually dark Moon were enhanced to bring out its faint glow from doubly reflected sunlight.

How about this? Totally digitally remastered, and then given to the public, to accept it without murmur.

The Black Sun also has shadows over its surface, which could resemble those of the Moon.