The conspiracy is obviously present here. Why else would certain members come up with completely nonsensical theories? Obviously they are here to discredit fe theory.
If there is a conspiracy it's some of the fe's, giving arguments so crazy as to convince people who are not sure, that fe is insane. Do I need to mention the antimoon that is impossible to ever observe yet which crops up during an esclipe only?
First of all, it's not the "Anti-Moon," it's the "Shadow Object." The Anti-Moon is a celestial body beneath the earth.
The Shadow Object is a satellite of the Sun, manifesting its shadow upon the moon when the Sun, Object, and Moon perfectly align. The Shadow Object does not pass between the observer and the Moon, but passes between the Sun and Moon. During an eclipse we see its shadow.
The Shadow Object is never seen because, as a satellite of the Sun, it is always on the "day" side of the earth. During the day the sun's light blots out all celestial bodies in the sky.
Learn More: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse
Physics, Rowbotham Style:
"1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed,
cold will be reflected.
If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.
A reflector will not
throw off cold when heat is placed before it; nor heat when cold is presented. If a red light is received, red light will be returned, not blue or yellow. If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but precisely the same note, altered only in degree or intensity."
Rowbotham has trouble with thermodynamics...
"If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth
any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity"
Rowbotham doesn't realize that the atmosphere can alter the light coming from the Sun to the Moon.
"It has been asserted in opposition to the above, that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays. To this it is replied that
absorption means speedy saturation: a piece of blotting paper, or a lump of hard sugar, or a sponge when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time;
it would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion, and from that moment
would cease to absorb, and ever afterwards could only reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it. So the moon, if an object without light of her own, might at the beginning of her existence absorb the sun's ray's, and, fixing some, might return the others; but as already shown,
she could only absorb to saturation, which would occur in a very short time; and from this point of saturation to the present moment she could not have been other than a reflector--a reflector, too, of all which she receives."
Rowbotham fails to understand radiative heat transfer, heat dissipation, and entropy.
"3rd. It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.
It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed."
Rowbotham's understanding of common housewife physics is astounding, but his assumptions about light from the Sun and Moon are lacking.
"4th. In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade."
Because Rowbotham is the king of real scientific experiments, I am surprised that he posts no references or data for this claim. I am unable to find any experiment that backs this up.
"6th. The light of the sun reflected from the surface of a pool of water, or from the surface of ice, may be collected in a large lens, and thrown to a point or focus, when the heat will be found to be considerable; but neither from the light of the moon reflected in a similar way, nor direct from the moon itself, can a heat-giving focus be obtained."
Rowbotham states the obvious, light reflected from the Sun off the Moon to the Earth should be less intense than direct rays from the Earth.
"7th. The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed.
The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations"
Rowbotham attributes the suns radiative heat transfer to visible light alone, and fails to recognize that the same heat transfer would not occur if the light was reflected off the Moon.
At this point I got tired and decided to stop. If you wish to continue to cite Rowbotham as your source of valid experimental evidence and solid reasoning I will continue again tomorrow.