The Moon Supports the BiPolar Model. (56K Warning)

I was looking at the Moon tonight and noticed that the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model, so I have recreated it for your viewing pleasure to see how I view the Earth, The Heavens and the Entire Universe.

Sorry, but without explanatory notes, these images are completely meaningless.

I also have no idea what this means:  "the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model".  What is "moonshine" (apart from cheap hooch)?  And how can reflected light from the moon's surface even vaguely mirror what the surface of the earth looks like?

Sorry, but without explanatory notes, these images are completely meaningless.

I also have no idea what this means:  "the Moonshine looks exactly like the flat Earth model".  What is "moonshine" (apart from cheap hooch)?  And how can reflected light from the moon's surface even vaguely mirror what the surface of the earth looks like?

Moonshine is the light and dark parts of the Moon.

I'm not completely sure why it works like it does. My best guess is that the Moon reflects the Atmosphere.

You can see that in Mirrored Parts especially in the Living Moon website here. Even sometimes whole structures like the Sphinx on the Moon. (They Mirror Egypt Perfectly)

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

In 50-60 seconds you can see a piece of Continuous Miner Equipment in this video.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Those are not the only anomalies but the list of them is great. Do some digging in the Living Moon website and you will uncover a great deal of information. (Also there is countless Anomalies on Mars as well)

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Images_Menu.html 

Unfortunately for this erroneous claim, our atmosphere is dynamic while the face of the moon is static. Argument over.

Unfortunately for this erroneous claim, our atmosphere is dynamic while the face of the moon is static. Argument over.

The Thermosphere is largely static for the most part though. Yea as you get closer to the bottom you see more variance but the topmost layer is largely static and only changes slightly throughout the day. If space mirrors the Earth and the Moon is closest to Earth then the Moon must be the difference between the Exosphere and the Thermosphere.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 16, 2014, 09:47:32 AM

Unfortunately for this erroneous claim, our atmosphere is dynamic while the face of the moon is static. Argument over.

The Thermosphere is largely static for the most part though. Yea as you get closer to the bottom you see more variance but the topmost layer is largely static and only changes slightly throughout the day. If space mirrors the Earth and the Moon is closest to Earth then the Moon must be the difference between the Exosphere and the Thermosphere.

Incorrect. I personally use satellite images to forecast weather myself. I can assure you that the most significant features to be seen with any type of imagery is clouds. If the moon was reflecting anything, it would be that.

Also, do you see the contradiction here? Using a claim like this to say the moon mirrors the earth is you admitting that the globular imagery we use are correct, thereby admitting its rotundity.

Furthermore, the earth rotates, which means a different face of the earth is always looking at the moon. The moon on the other hand always shows the same face. Dynamic vs Static.

Now, you might say that the earth isn't rotating so that's why we always see the same reflective face on the moon but the problem with that is that your attempts to show this coincidence are done by using a particular face of the earth of your choosing. It would seem that in your world view the moon would always be reflecting that particular earth face while we all know that the moon is overhead on different parts of the earth all the time.

These claims are so full of errors its not even funny. It's no different than thinking you see Jesus in the clouds.

Furthermore, the earth rotates, which means a different face of the earth is always looking at the moon. The moon on the other hand always shows the same face. Dynamic vs Static.

Now, you might say that the earth isn't rotating so that's why we always see the same reflective face on the moon but the problem with that is that your attempts to show this coincidence are done by using a particular face of the earth of your choosing. It would seem that in your world view the moon would always be reflecting that particular earth face while we all know that the moon is overhead on different parts of the earth all the time.

These claims are so full of errors its not even funny. It's no different than thinking you see Jesus in the clouds.

I'm not actually claiming the Moon is reflecting the Earth though. Yes it's certainly mirroring the Earths thermodynamics and hot objects on the (Flat Rectangular) Earth are creating imprints on the Moon. The closer you get to the middle of the darkness on the moon the hotter it gets.

Okay, so then what the hell is your point?

Okay, so then what the hell is your point?

My point was the Moon supports the Bipolar model but that's not all. The Stars also support the Bipolar model. I guess my point is that if Earth was rotating it would have to be rotating in one direction in the upper half and one direction opposite to top rotation in the lower half. Obviously though the Sun and Moon don't move backwards depending on location of Earth so that is impossible. However the Heavens aren't bound with any sort of limitation imposed upon them so they can move about in two directions simultaneously without disturbing the laws of nature. In sort though I don't believe that the Earth is rotating at all nor is it moving upwards with Universal acceleration. All Laws of Motion as described by Newton and Einstein can be replaced by much more accurate Electric Universe calculations which is 100% dependent on Electric Attraction and Resistance also called Electronic Magnetism. But it could be called Radioactive magnetism or Electron and Neutron particle reactions either-way using the Electric model is a much superior way then Newtonian or Eisensteinian based physics which are abstract Concepts like the concept of gravity and not exact replications of reality like the exact science of Electronic/Radioactive Resistance and Conductivity. 

You are aware that stars do in fact appear to go in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres? Notice in your pic that on one side they go counter clockwise while on the other they go clockwise. Thank you for admitting that this would be the case if the earth were round, as it is.

You are aware that stars do in fact appear to go in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres? Notice in your pic that on one side they go counter clockwise while on the other they go clockwise. Thank you for admitting that this would be the case if the earth were round, as it is.

Not really. I can't fathom how this could happen with a rotating Earth since you would apparently only have 1 direction of rotation so in theory all the stars should be going the same direction.

Going Clockwise and Counter-Clockwise makes a lot of sense if the light is being actively bent. This model explains it, it's worth noting that the Author of that picture of startrails above said the FOV was about 200 degrees wide.



If you can "Educate" me why this happens in the Round Earth model I'm listening but I can't think of any logical explanations on why it would happen in the RE model unless the Earth was rotating in two separate directions at the same time (and that clearly can't be the case).

Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.

Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.

That would make sense if the image was a composite of people standing on opposite poles but this is the image of one guy with a static camera capturing 200 degrees of vision West to East. Unless he was standing on opposite poles and taking a composite of the Entire Earth's vision of the Sky at once it shouldn't look like this in the RE Model.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 16, 2014, 05:05:46 PM

Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.

That would make sense if the image was a composite of people standing on opposite poles but this is the image of one guy with a static camera capturing 200 degrees of vision West to East. Unless he was standing on opposite poles and taking a composite of the Entire Earth's vision of the Sky at once it shouldn't look like this in the RE Model.

Unless the guy was standing on or near the equator, which is exactly where star rotation pictures like this one are taken.

Quote from: Sculelos on January 16, 2014, 05:24:55 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on January 16, 2014, 05:05:46 PM

Well the stars aren't actually going in a different direction, but from the reference of the observer it would most definitely appear that way because people in the southern hemisphere are essentially upside down in reference to people in the northern hemisphere.

That would make sense if the image was a composite of people standing on opposite poles but this is the image of one guy with a static camera capturing 200 degrees of vision West to East. Unless he was standing on opposite poles and taking a composite of the Entire Earth's vision of the Sky at once it shouldn't look like this in the RE Model.

Unless the guy was standing on or near the equator, which is exactly where star rotation pictures like this one are taken.

Even if you where standing on the Equator it should still appear like this since starlight would be dragged across the Earth due to rotation unless the stars where physically moving themselves (Which if the Stars are moving the Earth isn't).

If you are gonna make claims please use correct information. I've made threads about this very subject before and am well versed in this discussion. If you want to post pictures and claim things please provide a source we can verify the location the picture was taken. I would guess this was taken somewhere around 30-50° N or S. This is exactly how people navigate using Polaris.

If you are gonna make claims please use correct information. I've made threads about this very subject before and am well versed in this discussion. If you want to post pictures and claim things please provide a source we can verify the location the picture was taken. I would guess this was taken somewhere around 30-50° N or S. This is exactly how people navigate using Polaris.

Well still doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the Moon. Sometimes it (And the Sun) actually is much closer to Earth then other times.

Yeah, because the moon actually does go around the earth. Never mind the fact that stars too drop below the horizon. So again, you aren't making a relevant point

Yeah, because the moon actually does go around the earth. Never mind the fact that stars too drop below the horizon. So again, you aren't making a relevant point

Well for starters what is keeping that gigantic hill of water in place? You would think since it's so much higher then the people that they would be swimming in the ocean if water really flowed wherever it wanted to.

Where is the Horizon if it's at Eye level then it must be at about 135 degrees as 180 degrees is straight up and 90 degrees is straight forward (level with our feet) (78 Degrees would be at a 15% degradation or downhill slope and distance would be considered 100% irrelevant to the percentile even the nanometer level)

You can't be serious.

He's gotta be, he's got a 190 IQ...

Sculelos, I don't see any giant hill of water.

That Water has to be bulging at least 200 feet overhead in the distance.

Well for starters what is keeping that gigantic hill of water in place? You would think since it's so much higher then the people that they would be swimming in the ocean if water really flowed wherever it wanted to.

Where is the Horizon if it's at Eye level then it must be at about 135 degrees as 180 degrees is straight up and 90 degrees is straight forward (level with our feet) (78 Degrees would be at a 15% degradation or downhill slope and distance would be considered 100% irrelevant to the percentile even the nanometer level)

Let's try this; go learn about telephoto/high power zoom lens photography, and then get back to us.

Quote from: Sculelos on January 16, 2014, 07:44:28 PM

Well for starters what is keeping that gigantic hill of water in place? You would think since it's so much higher then the people that they would be swimming in the ocean if water really flowed wherever it wanted to.

Where is the Horizon if it's at Eye level then it must be at about 135 degrees as 180 degrees is straight up and 90 degrees is straight forward (level with our feet) (78 Degrees would be at a 15% degradation or downhill slope and distance would be considered 100% irrelevant to the percentile even the nanometer level)

Let's try this; go learn about telephoto/high power zoom lens photography, and then get back to us.

Or like.... Spend some time on earth.

Well still doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the Moon. Sometimes it (And the Sun) actually is much closer to Earth then other times.

Uh..... you do understand that your moon image is a fake don't you?   Or..... don't tell me you thought it was a real photo?  LOL.

Quote from: Sculelos on January 16, 2014, 06:55:43 PM

Well still doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the Moon. Sometimes it (And the Sun) actually is much closer to Earth then other times.

Uh..... you do understand that your moon image is a fake don't you?   Or..... don't tell me you thought it was a real photo?  LOL.

The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model. IQ of 190 or not, I wish I had Sculelos's brain for a day. I want to know how he comes up with this stuff.

The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.

In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius.  Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.

The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic.  It's far too wide.

Quote from: AnonConda on January 17, 2014, 02:51:40 AM

The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.

In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius.  Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.

The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic.  It's far too wide.

It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.

The Moon is always as Wide as it is Tall. Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 17, 2014, 04:08:28 AM

Quote from: AnonConda on January 17, 2014, 02:51:40 AM

The photo is possible by high zoom from an elevated stand point, and is consistent with the round earth model.

In actuality, the moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it's closer to the horizon than when it's high in the sky—because it's farther away by nearly one earth radius.  Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.

The width of the supposed reflection at the horizon is the giveaway with this pic.  It's far too wide.

It's called Supermoon and the Moon is only 2/5ths it's normal distance meaning the Moon is 2.5 Times as big as average meaning the Moon goes from About 5-6 Degrees wide in the Sky to about 32 degrees wide in the Sky.

The Moon is always as Wide as it is Tall. Therefore the Usual distance to the moon is 237,000 miles but on that night the Moon was only 94,800 Miles from Earth.

No, no it doesn't
A supermoon is about 14% larger than a normal full moon.  As a reference, here is a picture from wiki.


Now the one on the left is a normal full moon, the one on the right is a supermoon.  If you can tell the difference without a reference sitting right next to it, you have better eyes than I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon