FE explanations for the April 2014 lunar eclipse

Here is the video I was looking for.  The Selenelion eclipse. Doesn't look impossible to me.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

SHOW US PROOF THIS EVER HAPPENED YOU LUNATIC!

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:30:57 PM

Get back to me when you figure it out with the flashlight, baseball, and golfball, Sok.

In a dark room shine a flashlight on a baseball about 5 to 10 feet away. Then put the golf ball behind the baseball about one foot away. It will be in the shadow of the baseball.

An observer looking tangentially along the baseball then is able to see both the flashlight and golf ball while this is occurring? I can't see it.

Here is the video I was looking for.  The Selenelion eclipse. Doesn't look impossible to me.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So your question is how did the moon eclipse with sun in the horizon? At least you provided something we can now talk about rather than throwing out just words. There is an explanation for this. Is this what you want?

Here is what you saw. It was a lunar eclipse but you were not in the dead of night or in the full daylight.
Although the Moon is in the Earth’s umbra, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can both be seen at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes each of them to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position.

As is, I already know you will rush to wikipedia and say, "Ooooh, that's just ...." before regurgitating wikipedia's orthodox explanation and swallowing it unquestioningly. But the contrast will at least make me laugh.

I feel prophetic already. Perhaps I should hit Vegas.   
I assure you, however, that I saw both the sun and moon in their full.

Here is what you saw. It was a lunar eclipse but you were not in the dead of night or in the full daylight.
Although the Moon is in the Earth’s umbra, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can both be seen at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes each of them to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position.

Ski is going to say you are wrong because he makes the assumption that the earth is flat, not because he has evidence against what you say.

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:27:57 PM

As is, I already know you will rush to wikipedia and say, "Ooooh, that's just ...." before regurgitating wikipedia's orthodox explanation and swallowing it unquestioningly. But the contrast will at least make me laugh.

I feel prophetic already. Perhaps I should hit Vegas.   
I assure you, however, that I saw both the sun and moon in their full.

Feel free to disprove the explination instead of just spouting your opinion like it's fact.

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:30:57 PM

Get back to me when you figure it out with the flashlight, baseball, and golfball, Sok.

In a dark room shine a flashlight on a baseball about 5 to 10 feet away. Then put the golf ball behind the baseball about one foot away. It will be in the shadow of the baseball.

An observer looking tangentially along the baseball then is able to see both the flashlight and golf ball while this is occurring? I can't see it.

What would happen if you put a basketball in your shadow on the ground. Do you get it... sun--person--- shadow--ball in shadow.

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:27:57 PM

As is, I already know you will rush to wikipedia and say, "Ooooh, that's just ...." before regurgitating wikipedia's orthodox explanation and swallowing it unquestioningly. But the contrast will at least make me laugh.

I feel prophetic already. Perhaps I should hit Vegas.   
I assure you, however, that I saw both the sun and moon in their full.

Ok. That year and month was it and were were you at the time?

He offers no citation and goes on to say "I think we can agree..." Well I'm afraid not. You are full of shit.

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:41:48 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:30:57 PM

Get back to me when you figure it out with the flashlight, baseball, and golfball, Sok.

In a dark room shine a flashlight on a baseball about 5 to 10 feet away. Then put the golf ball behind the baseball about one foot away. It will be in the shadow of the baseball.

An observer looking tangentially along the baseball then is able to see both the flashlight and golf ball while this is occurring? I can't see it.

What would happen if you put a basketball in your shadow on the ground. Do you get it... sun--person--- shadow--ball in shadow.

Yes, but if the golf ball is in the shadow of the baseball. Can a tiny observer unable to see beyond the horizon at the surface of the baseball see the fullness of the golfball in the shadow and the flashlight at the same time. I understand the conventional explanation of the lunar eclipse. I also understand that it is completely inadequate to explain what I and others saw at that time.

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:49:12 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:41:48 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:30:57 PM

Get back to me when you figure it out with the flashlight, baseball, and golfball, Sok.

In a dark room shine a flashlight on a baseball about 5 to 10 feet away. Then put the golf ball behind the baseball about one foot away. It will be in the shadow of the baseball.

An observer looking tangentially along the baseball then is able to see both the flashlight and golf ball while this is occurring? I can't see it.

What would happen if you put a basketball in your shadow on the ground. Do you get it... sun--person--- shadow--ball in shadow.

Yes, but if the golf ball is in the shadow of the baseball. Can a tiny observer unable to see beyond the horizon at the surface of the baseball see the fullness of the golfball in the shadow and the flashlight at the same time. I understand the conventional explanation of the lunar eclipse. I also understand that it is completely inadequate to explain what I and others saw at that time.

Refraction, do you understand what it is? Do you care to discredit this explanation?

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:49:12 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:41:48 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 06:30:57 PM

Get back to me when you figure it out with the flashlight, baseball, and golfball, Sok.

In a dark room shine a flashlight on a baseball about 5 to 10 feet away. Then put the golf ball behind the baseball about one foot away. It will be in the shadow of the baseball.

An observer looking tangentially along the baseball then is able to see both the flashlight and golf ball while this is occurring? I can't see it.

What would happen if you put a basketball in your shadow on the ground. Do you get it... sun--person--- shadow--ball in shadow.

Yes, but if the golf ball is in the shadow of the baseball. Can a tiny observer unable to see beyond the horizon at the surface of the baseball see the fullness of the golfball in the shadow and the flashlight at the same time. I understand the conventional explanation of the lunar eclipse. I also understand that it is completely inadequate to explain what I and others saw at that time.

Then tell us the year and month and where you were. You know I will find out what you saw and you won't like my answer.

He offers no citation and goes on to say "I think we can agree..." Well I'm afraid not. You are full of shit.

I know it is laughably impossible if we assume globularism is true. The reactions in the thread show just how impossible it is assuming the orthodox explanation of lunar eclipses is correct. Your gut itself is telling you. Don't let go of that feeling.

In light of that, either I am "full of shit" or a "lunatic" (particularly funny because of the unintended pun) or globularism is.  And I assure you it happens.

Quote from: rottingroom on April 15, 2014, 06:53:22 PM

He offers no citation and goes on to say "I think we can agree..." Well I'm afraid not. You are full of shit.

I know it is laughably impossible if we assume globularism is true. The reactions in the thread show just how impossible it is assuming the orthodox explanation of lunar eclipses is correct. Your gut itself is telling you. Don't let go of that feeling.

In light of that, either I am "full of shit" or a "lunatic" (particularly funny because of the unintended pun) or globularism is.  And I assure you it happens.

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

Quote from: rottingroom on April 15, 2014, 06:53:22 PM

He offers no citation and goes on to say "I think we can agree..." Well I'm afraid not. You are full of shit.

I know it is laughably impossible if we assume globularism is true. The reactions in the thread show just how impossible it is assuming the orthodox explanation of lunar eclipses is correct. Your gut itself is telling you. Don't let go of that feeling.

In light of that, either I am "full of shit" or a "lunatic" (particularly funny because of the unintended pun) or globularism is.  And I assure you it happens.

It is so funny to see your tactic. When you are cornered you respond by avoiding the question and commenting on silly things. The FE'ers are all the same. I had a great time with scepti and jroa with those tactics. In the end making claims with playing games just make you a liar. You did not see anything.

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

I'm going to give them time to think for themselves before telling them what to think or letting someone else do it. I have no doubt they'll rush to wikipedia and swallow the comforting lies they find there unquestioningly just as those that have gone before them, Sok.

Quote from: sokarul on April 15, 2014, 07:07:45 PM

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

I'm going to give them time to think for themselves before telling them what to think or letting someone else do it. I have no doubt they'll rush to wikipedia and swallow the comforting lies they find there unquestioningly just as those that have gone before them, Sok.

I have been here long enough so I will translate this for everyone else.

"I can't".

"We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time."

hahahahaha  thanks for the laugh! Please I hope for the sake of all humanity he is joking. Please be trolling. Please!

Jer9999, it's called a "selenelion" or "selenehelion". Here's a writeup from Wikipedia: Selenelion

It is possible because the earth is round, which places the horizon low enough so as to not obstruct the observer's view of either the sun or moon (light also tends to refract slightly in such a way as to make the sun and moon appear slightly higher in the sky than they actually are). Had it not been lightly overcast yesterday evening where I live, I would have witnessed this event. The moonrise time was 5:37pm, the sunset time was 5:41pm, and totality was from 5:08pm to 6:23pm. As you can see, the fully eclipsed moon rose just before the sun set (easy when you live on a spherical earth, thus-far unexplained for a FE). I was massively disappointed that it was so cloudy, as this event may not be visible again from this location in my lifetime.

To see this event, it is necessary to to be in a location which will be either at sunrise or sunset during totality. The best place to see this during the next lunar eclipse would be anywhere that will be at dawn or dusk between these times on the 8th of October this year: totality from 1027UTC to 1122UTC, maximum eclipse at 1055UTC.

Quote from: sokarul on April 15, 2014, 07:07:45 PM

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

I'm going to give them time to think for themselves before telling them what to think or letting someone else do it. I have no doubt they'll rush to wikipedia and swallow the comforting lies they find there unquestioningly just as those that have gone before them, Sok.

You did say it was documented. Let us see.

Quote from: Jer9999 on April 15, 2014, 05:59:21 PM

"We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time."

hahahahaha  thanks for the laugh! Please I hope for the sake of all humanity he is joking. Please be trolling. Please!

Jer9999, it's called a "selenelion" or "selenehelion". Here's a writeup from Wikipedia: Selenelion

It is possible because the earth is round, which places the horizon low enough so as to not obstruct the observer's view of either the sun or moon (light also tends to refract slightly in such a way as to make the sun and moon appear slightly higher in the sky than they actually are). Had it not been lightly overcast yesterday evening where I live, I would have witnessed this event. The moonrise time was 5:37pm, the sunset time was 5:41pm, and totality was from 5:08pm to 6:23pm. As you can see, the fully eclipsed moon rose just before the sun set (easy when you live on a spherical earth, thus-far unexplained for a FE). I was massively disappointed that it was so cloudy, as this event may not be visible again from this location in my lifetime.

To see this event, it is necessary to to be in a location which will be either at sunrise or sunset during totality. The best place to see this during the next lunar eclipse would be anywhere that will be at dawn or dusk between these times on the 8th of October this year: totality from 1027UTC to 1122UTC, maximum eclipse at 1055UTC.

Well this sure seems obvious. For some reason I thought he was making an argument that would prove the earth isn't round though. Thanks.

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 15, 2014, 07:07:45 PM

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

I'm going to give them time to think for themselves before telling them what to think or letting someone else do it. I have no doubt they'll rush to wikipedia and swallow the comforting lies they find there unquestioningly just as those that have gone before them, Sok.

I have been here long enough so I will translate this for everyone else.

"I can't".

You didn't even think it was possible, Sok. You had to rush to wikipedia to find the comforting answer you wanted, too. I hardly expect different of this lot, but I should atleast afford them the opportunity to think for themselves, shouldn't I?

The human mind naturally tells us this is untrue, but if the high priests give something mysterious a name, it becomes completely plausible to you adherents. From "impossible" "lunatic" to "of course" in the twinkling of an Orthodox eye.  We'll sadly see it happen in this thread, just like it did for you.

Quote from: sokarul on June 25, 2013, 01:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:03:15 AM

I have personally observed the moon eclipsed while the sun was still in the sky. I can only conclude that whatever phenomenon eclipsing the moon, it cannot be the earth's shadow.

No, you didn't. You are confusing the moon's phases with an eclipse. You cannot even see a full moon in the day.

Well, I'm so glad you're here to reveal your ignorance. I clearly saw it along with myriads of other people. The fact that it is impossible assuming RET is no nevermind to me.

Quote from: sokarul on April 15, 2014, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 15, 2014, 07:07:45 PM

How many pages is it going to take before you even attempt to disprove the current explanation?

I'm going to give them time to think for themselves before telling them what to think or letting someone else do it. I have no doubt they'll rush to wikipedia and swallow the comforting lies they find there unquestioningly just as those that have gone before them, Sok.

I have been here long enough so I will translate this for everyone else.

"I can't".

You didn't even think it was possible, Sok. You had to rush to wikipedia to find the comforting answer you wanted, too. I hardly expect different of this lot, but I should atleast afford them the opportunity to think for themselves, shouldn't I?

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 03:58:39 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 25, 2013, 01:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:03:15 AM

I have personally observed the moon eclipsed while the sun was still in the sky. I can only conclude that whatever phenomenon eclipsing the moon, it cannot be the earth's shadow.

No, you didn't. You are confusing the moon's phases with an eclipse. You cannot even see a full moon in the day.

Well, I'm so glad you're here to reveal your ignorance. I clearly saw it along with myriads of other people. The fact that it is impossible assuming RET is no nevermind to me.

You are stalling again!!

Another tactic. They run away... Ski where are you?

Right here. Where are you?

Right here. Where are you?

Right here. What year and month and were were you?

The fact that it is impossible assuming RET is no nevermind to me.

The word "fact" in that statement should be replaced with "mistaken belief". If you can't see how this is possible on a round earth, then you're not thinking hard enough.

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 07:49:47 PM

Right here. Where are you?

Right here. What year and month and were were you?

Clearly he is talking about what scintific is bringing up so I'm not sure why you are badgering him. The important question to ask him though is why does it matter for him to bring up the Selenelion? It proves once again that the earth is round.

Quote from: Starman on April 15, 2014, 07:50:49 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 15, 2014, 07:49:47 PM

Right here. Where are you?

Right here. What year and month and were were you?

Clearly he is talking about what scintific is bringing up so I'm not sure why you are badgering him. The important question to ask him though is why does it matter for him to bring up the Selenelion? It proves once again that the earth is round.

He claimed it was not at sunset and plain daylight. I don't believe him.