The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?

Quote from: the flying russian on October 26, 2010, 03:39:42 PM

Since pictures are not acceptable when trying to support RET, why should they be acceptable when trying to support FET? (Anti-moon being apart of FET)

This is one of the great mysteries of FES.

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Of course. Seems curious how no one has ever documented a regularly occurring dark spot moving across the sky!

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Of course. Seems curious how no one has ever documented a regularly occurring dark spot moving across the sky!

James goes out at night to look for the dark spot, even with his fears of lunar rays.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Of course it would, which is why it is nonsense.

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Of course it would, which is why it is nonsense.

So is there an FE answer to an eclipse?

Berny
Really tired

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

I apologize, but Wikipedia.org is no longer a valid form of evidence on this website because of its obvious RE bias. Please offer a different less biased source.

Quote from: Thork on October 25, 2010, 04:49:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

I apologize, but Wikipedia.org is no longer a valid form of evidence on this website because of its obvious RE bias. Please offer a different less biased source.

so you just took a source that we all use, and just deemed it unsuable? that makes no sense.  isnt wikipedia peer-edited and reviewed?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Since Robotham, James, and you claim that the Moon shines by its own light, why would the shadow object's interposition between the Sun and Moon make any more sense than saying James kisses boys?

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

But the shadow object travels in a plane between the observer and the stars, therefore it should still be seen blocking stars.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:16:34 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Since Robotham, James, and you claim that the Moon shines by its own light, why would the shadow object's interposition between the Sun and Moon make any more sense than saying James kisses boys?

Where have I ever said that the moon shines by its own light? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:16:34 PM

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

But the shadow object travels in a plane between the observer and the stars, therefore it should still be seen blocking stars.

If you had read the Wiki article you would know that the Shadow Object is rotating closely around the sun, and therefore would always be on the "day" side of the earth.

During the day the sun's light hits the atmosphere and scatters, blotting out most celestial bodies in the sky. No stars are seen in the sky during the day, and thus cannot be blocked.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 06:05:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:16:34 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Since Robotham, James, and you claim that the Moon shines by its own light, why would the shadow object's interposition between the Sun and Moon make any more sense than saying James kisses boys?

Where have I ever said that the moon shines by its own light? 

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17140.msg295263#msg295263.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 08:29:43 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 06:05:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:16:34 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on November 04, 2010, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 03, 2010, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 03, 2010, 08:13:55 PM

i thought in fe theory, the anti-moon is under earth

FE is inconsistent. The shadow object, sometimes called the 'anti-moon', explains lunar eclipses. The sub-moon, under the FE, sometime call the 'anti-moon', explain the high tides opposite the Moon.

Wouldn't the shadow moon block out the stars on its way to creating an eclipse?

Berny
Hungry

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

Since Robotham, James, and you claim that the Moon shines by its own light, why would the shadow object's interposition between the Sun and Moon make any more sense than saying James kisses boys?

Where have I ever said that the moon shines by its own light? 

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17140.msg295263#msg295263.

Wrong.

Wrong.

How so? Don't you agree with Rowbotham when you quote him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:13:21 PM

Wrong.

How so? Don't you agree with Rowbotham when you quote him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I'm not Rowbotham. I don't have to agree with everything he believes.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 09:14:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:13:21 PM

Wrong.

How so? Don't you agree with Rowbotham when you quote him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I'm not Rowbotham. I don't have to agree with everything he believes.

You quoted his position. Why would you do that if you didn't agree with him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:15:50 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 09:14:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:13:21 PM

Wrong.

How so? Don't you agree with Rowbotham when you quote him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I'm not Rowbotham. I don't have to agree with everything he believes.

You quoted his position. Why would you do that if you didn't agree with him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I quoted the newspaper's review of him as support of his character and sway with the public.

Rowbotham got most things right in Earth Not a Globe. But no one is saying that absolutely everything is correct.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 09:17:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:15:50 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 05, 2010, 09:14:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2010, 09:13:21 PM

Wrong.

How so? Don't you agree with Rowbotham when you quote him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I'm not Rowbotham. I don't have to agree with everything he believes.

You quoted his position. Why would you do that if you didn't agree with him? Is Rowbotham wrong?

I quoted the newspaper's review of him as support of his character and sway with the public.

Why would you do that if you didn't agree with it? Is Rowbotham wrong?

This is very interesting.  Tom, are you not concerned that because he got some things so very wrong, his credibility is in doubt ?

You are after all a very black and white  person.  Are you actually compromising here?   
Is it wise to hang your belief off of someone who is (by your own admission) wrong in some of his "beliefs"?

Most interesting.

This is very interesting.  Tom, are you not concerned that because he got some things so very wrong, his credibility is in doubt ?

Are you so concerned about Albert Einstein?  Isaac Newton?  Stephen Hawking?  If scientists' getting the occasional thing wrong (even very wrong) is reason to doubt their overall credibility, I would suggest that the whole of modern science has zero credibility.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2010, 07:58:51 AM

This is very interesting.  Tom, are you not concerned that because he got some things so very wrong, his credibility is in doubt ?

Are you so concerned about Albert Einstein?  Isaac Newton?  Stephen Hawking?  If scientists' getting the occasional thing wrong (even very wrong) is reason to doubt their overall credibility, I would suggest that the whole of modern science has zero credibility.

Rowbotham got the shape of the earth wrong.  I mean that is very very very wrong.

Berny
Does not like working saturdays

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 06, 2010, 11:58:14 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2010, 07:58:51 AM

This is very interesting.  Tom, are you not concerned that because he got some things so very wrong, his credibility is in doubt ?

Are you so concerned about Albert Einstein?  Isaac Newton?  Stephen Hawking?  If scientists' getting the occasional thing wrong (even very wrong) is reason to doubt their overall credibility, I would suggest that the whole of modern science has zero credibility.

Rowbotham got the shape of the earth wrong.  I mean that is very very very wrong.

Berny
Does not like working saturdays

See, you and I know that, but neither one of us is going to convince Tom of it.  Moon squirter was calling Tom's impression of Rowbotham into question, not yours or mine or his, so that's irrelevant to the point he was trying to make.

Are you so concerned about Albert Einstein?  Isaac Newton?  Stephen Hawking?  If scientists' getting the occasional thing wrong (even very wrong) is reason to doubt their overall credibility, I would suggest that the whole of modern science has zero credibility.

Roundy is correct.

Newton's idea that gravity was a force was wrong, but that doesn't stop you guys from referencing Newton's other ideas, such as his contributions to classical mechanics.

Newton also believed in the occult and supernatural, but RE'ers seem to ignore that and continue to hold Newton up as a genius.

 Newton at least got something right. Rowbotham didn't.

Quote from: markjo on November 05, 2010, 09:17:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:16:34 PM

Please see the Wiki on this topic. The Shadow Object does not move between the observer and the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse. It moves between the Sun and Moon.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

But the shadow object travels in a plane between the observer and the stars, therefore it should still be seen blocking stars.

If you had read the Wiki article you would know that the Shadow Object is rotating closely around the sun, and therefore would always be on the "day" side of the earth.

During the day the sun's light hits the atmosphere and scatters, blotting out most celestial bodies in the sky. No stars are seen in the sky during the day, and thus cannot be blocked.

Since the object in the OP is near the moon, then it can't possibly be the shadow object.  Thanks for settling that part of the debate.

Newton also believed in the occult and supernatural, but RE'ers seem to ignore that and continue to hold Newton up as a genius.

Why should his beliefs come into question?  Canada had a Prime Minister who spoke to his dogs, and grandmother - years after they were dead through a crystal ball.  He still pulled us through a war.

Berny
Thinks Tom might have a phobia