Antimoon?!?!?!

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. 

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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

Quote from: James on April 26, 2010, 01:30:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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?

Quote from: James on April 26, 2010, 01:30:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: James on April 26, 2010, 01:30:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: James on April 26, 2010, 01:30:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 10:32:56 AM

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?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 26, 2010, 07:48:47 AM

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.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 06:23:39 PM

I'd love to know what the shadow object is known as in RE science too.

What shadow object?

The antimoon.

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 26, 2010, 06:27:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 06:23:39 PM

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.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 06:23:39 PM

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.)

Quote from: FES FAQ

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.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 26, 2010, 06:27:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 06:23:39 PM

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?!

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 07:24:03 AM

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


Lunar eclipse