Why haven't we EVER seen a picture of Eclipses FROM SPACE?

Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :



Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :











2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

..time dilation. Thank you for your opinion, I'll remember to assume anything from you to be pure comedy.

NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA... Is there a doctor on the forum?

Abandon the lie : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Maybe cikljamas is suggesting that on a real moon an object should fall at a relativistic speed?

Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :

Cikljamas, that's a rock.

Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :

It's called interpolation.  Look it up.

It's a light weight rover in 1/6 gravity, that wouldn't be hard to lift.

I don't understand how this proves anything.

2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

Look up time dilation, because you clearly have no idea what that means.

Quote from: Saros on March 15, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 15, 2015, 11:39:55 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.

Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.

No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!

Abandon the lie : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You then have no understanding on how fast you can lift somebody with a hand.

IF landing on Moon had been faked, then:

- Soviet Union would have answered and proved the "lie" quickly,
- it would have to have to been strongest organisation on the world (NASA), because no organisation is THAT organised, that nobody wouldn't reveal any secret.

Quote from: cikljamas on March 15, 2015, 01:14:57 PM

It's a light weight rover in 1/6 gravity, that wouldn't be hard to lift.

Or all the moving around they did making that repair to the fender kicked around the regolith and obscured the tracks.

Actually I think I can see a track there.

Quote from: Misero on March 15, 2015, 12:42:13 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 15, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 15, 2015, 11:39:55 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.

Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.

No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!

I am not sure how I can debate with someone who constantly fails to recognize he doesn't have any proof he is right but his own faith. Just because the other side doesn't have concrete evidence that you recognize doesn't mean you do. The truth is you guys are not debating with me. You're believers in round Earth. Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased. You would always think you're right regardless of what I say.

I am not sure how I can debate with someone who constantly fails to recognize he doesn't have any proof he is right but his own faith. Just because the other side doesn't have concrete evidence that you recognize doesn't mean you do. The truth is you guys are not debating with me. You're believers in round Earth. Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased. You would always think you're right regardless of what I say.

The only reason you think there is no evidence for a round Earth is because you use your bias to dismiss even the most convincing evidence of a round Earth.  Watch the video linked in this thread if you want to see evidence in favor of a round Earth.  Watch it, I dare you.

Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased.

You believe the earth is flat.  Therefore you're biased, and can't possibly debate.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 15, 2015, 08:37:35 PM

Quote from: Misero on March 15, 2015, 12:42:13 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 15, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 15, 2015, 11:39:55 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.

Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.

No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!

I am not sure how I can debate with someone who constantly fails to recognize he doesn't have any proof he is right but his own faith. Just because the other side doesn't have concrete evidence that you recognize doesn't mean you do. The truth is you guys are not debating with me. You're believers in round Earth. Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased. You would always think you're right regardless of what I say.

You could start by describing a plausible scenario where what we see as planets but are actually "projections" could possibly work. I don't see how it could possibly work, but it's your idea, so please have a go at it.

I have never claimed to have proof that the planets are spheres. I can point to a ton of evidence, visual and otherwise, that is consistent with that, though. Data is what science works with; not faith (belief without evidence) and not proof (proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science).

Perhaps it's time to post the link to an article that explains clearly why there are no scientific proofs again. It's been a while.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Instead of arguing pointlessly that since something looks like a sphere (presents a round profile from any angle), acts like a sphere (foreshortening of features near the limbs, shape of lit and unlit parts), and it makes sense that it's a sphere (lowest energy state is for it to form into a sphere), it might be something else, please describe not only what that something else is (a "projection", by something, on something, from somewhere, apparently), but how these "projections" could match what we see. If your model can explain everything we can see, and doesn't have any fatal flaws of its own, then you might have something, especially if it is a simpler model.

Good luck! I think you're going to need it.

If you can't be bothered to do this, then you're engaging in no more than idle speculation, and your idea can properly be dismissed. We already have a perfectly adequate model that does match what we can easily see from earth, even before getting to the additional hard data collected from manned and unmanned visits.

Quote from: cikljamas on March 11, 2015, 05:53:16 AM

I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!

How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.

The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration.

The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.

The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.

So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?

Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :



Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :











2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:19:35 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 11, 2015, 05:53:16 AM

I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!

How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.

The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration.

The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.

The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.

So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?

Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :



Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :











2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!

Reposting it doesn't make it true.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:19:35 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 11, 2015, 05:53:16 AM

I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!

How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.

The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration.

The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.

That eccentricity of 0.0549 may seem large compared with major SS bodies, but it's minuscule compared with things with truly eccentric orbits like comets, whose orbits have eccentricities on the order of, and sometimes exceeding, 1. It's really quite small; if you drew an ellipse with that eccentricity so its minor axis was 1000 pixels, its major axis would be between 1001 and 1002 pixels. You wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference by just looking, and hard pressed to notice even if you drew a comparison circle. The foci of this ellipse would each be about 55 pixels from the center along the major axis. Again, you'd have to draw a circle centered on one focus or the other to even notice. "Substantial" is a vague term, but this clearly wouldn't qualify.

The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference[nb]About 10%. Almost no one notices unless there's an annular (instead of total) eclipse or told about the Super Moon!!! Even then, the reaction to looking at the Super Moon!!! is usually "huh? I thought it was supposed to look bigger."[/nb]
in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.

So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside far side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?
 

We can't see the "dark side" because it's dark. Duh! Of course, when the Moon is nearly new, there is enough illumination by the Earth to see the "dark side" some, but I don't think this is what you really meant, thus the corrections above. I suspect you mean the far side. Do try to use the correct terminology, especially after it's already been pointed out to you. It makes communication easier.

The short answer is, we do see part of the far side. As already pointed out... The result is the well-known libration. This allows us to see about 9% of the far side due to the constant rate of rotation and not-quite-constant orbital speed. Did you even look at the link provided for your convenience?

<more inane long-debunked nonsense>

The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had  a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really

The reason NASA and the Satan controlled world order...

Oh dear.  Now our very own John Hayseed is apparently channeling jroa LOL.

"Satan"?  Don't tell me that Hayseed's another of these lunatic god-botherers?   

England had  a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?

Maybe earths rotation is slowing, if this is the case we should begin preparations for evacuation. Where's Gunnar?

The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had  a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really

Firstly the eclipse isnt until Friday 20th.

Secondly, the moon takes approximately 27 days to orbit 360 degrees around the earth. The suns angular diameter as viewed from earth is half a degree. A little bit of basic maths now:

360 degrees / 27 days = 13.3 degrees per day or 0.55 degrees per hour.

0.5 degree (sun) / 0.55 degrees per hour gives approx one hour.

Therefore it takes one hour for the moon to cover the sun entirely and then another hour for it to uncover the sun. This equals two hours.

Seems legit.

Firstly,



It rotates on it's axis ONES in the SAME time it takes to orbit us once despite it's (Moon's) significantly eccentric orbit! Tell this fairy tale to someone else!!!

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

What is interesting here to notice is that heliocentrists had been used the same paradigm/mechanics (perfectly synchronized rotation of the Moon) even before they decided that the Moon circles around the Earth once per month instead of once per day!!!

They just DRAMATICALLY changed the alleged speed of rotation and orbital speed of the Moon as well as alleged distances between celestial "bodies"!!!

Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.

So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)

Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:

Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says

" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer









Secondly, how about the "EOT" problem regarding the Moon?

The speed of the Moon = 0,0041 degrees per second
The speed of the Sun = 0,00000039 degrees per second

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

Thirdly, during a central eclipse, the Moon's umbra (or antumbra, in the case of an annular eclipse) moves rapidly from west to east across the Earth. The Earth is also rotating from west to east, at about 28 km/min at the Equator, but as the Moon is moving in the same direction as the Earth's spin at about 61 km/min, the umbra almost always appears to move in a roughly west-east direction across a map of the Earth at the speed of the Moon's orbital velocity minus the Earth's rotational velocity.

--3660 km/h (alleged speed of the Moon) - 1660 (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator) = 2000 km/h (the speed of umbra/antumbra)

--3660 km/h - 850 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at Oslo) = 2810 km/h

--3660 km/h - 0 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole) = 3660 km/h

Is this in accordance with reality???

20 March 2015 — Total Solar Eclipse

It's a Total Solar Eclipse in Svalbard (Norway) and the Faroe Islands, and a Partial Solar Eclipse in Europe, northern and eastern Asia and northern and western Africa The eclipse starts at 7:41am UTC. The maximum point (totality) begins at 09:45am UTC and will last for 2 minutes and 47 seconds.

21 August 2017 — Total Solar Eclipse

The total solar eclipse will be visible from most locations in the United States and Canada.

This eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse visible from contiguous United States since 1979. The total phase of the eclipse will be visible from locations spanning from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States. The last time this happened was during the June 8, 1918 total solar eclipse.

Parts of Western Europe and northern and western South America will experience a partial solar eclipse.

The eclipse will begin at 03:47 p.m. (15:47) UTC. The maximum point of the eclipse will take place near Hopkinsville, Kentucky at 06:22 p.m. (18:22) UTC. Totality will last for 2 mins 40 secs.

I already answered that in your global conspiracy thread.

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 16, 2015, 08:40:33 PM

The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had  a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really

Firstly the eclipse isnt until Friday 20th.

Secondly, the moon takes approximately 27 days to orbit 360 degrees around the earth. The suns angular diameter as viewed from earth is half a degree. A little bit of basic maths now:

360 degrees / 27 days = 13.3 degrees per day or 0.55 degrees per hour.

0.5 degree (sun) / 0.55 degrees per hour gives approx one hour.

Therefore it takes one hour for the moon to cover the sun entirely and then another hour for it to uncover the sun. This equals two hours.

Seems legit.

Actually, the Moon doesn't always travel at the same speed from our perspective. There are days when it moves much faster and days when it is slower somehow. At least that is the impression I get when observing it through a telescope. On some days I would need to adjust the telescope every few seconds, and on others you can watch it for 20 minutes and it doesn't seem to move.

Quote from: Mainframes on March 17, 2015, 06:13:06 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 16, 2015, 08:40:33 PM

The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had  a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really

Firstly the eclipse isnt until Friday 20th.

Secondly, the moon takes approximately 27 days to orbit 360 degrees around the earth. The suns angular diameter as viewed from earth is half a degree. A little bit of basic maths now:

360 degrees / 27 days = 13.3 degrees per day or 0.55 degrees per hour.

0.5 degree (sun) / 0.55 degrees per hour gives approx one hour.

Therefore it takes one hour for the moon to cover the sun entirely and then another hour for it to uncover the sun. This equals two hours.

Seems legit.

Actually, the Moon doesn't always travel at the same speed from our perspective. There are days when it moves much faster and days when it is slower somehow. At least that is the impression I get when observing it through a telescope. On some days I would need to adjust the telescope every few seconds, and on others you can watch it for 20 minutes and it doesn't seem to move.

The Moon's apparent speed across the sky does vary slightly through each lunation, but only slightly, due to the Moon's elliptical orbit and the orbit's inclination wrt the Earth's equator.

There are too many unknowns to draw meaningful conclusions from your comment. Were you using the same telescope and the same magnification when you made the observations described here? What kind of mount was (were) the telescope(s) on (equatorial, alt-az, unknown)? Were you using a tracking mount in some cases and not others? If all, was the mount's alignment and tracking rate correct in all cases? If you know them, what were the specific dates and times these observations were made, and what direction was the Moon drifting out of the FOV (N, S, E, or W, or somewhere between)? Can anyone else corroborate your observations?

So much text, so many images. So much misinformation. What a waste of bandwidth. Here's where you're wrong again:

Firstly,

http://i.imgur.com/Bs2DmsN.jpg

It rotates on it's axis ONES in the SAME time it takes to orbit us once despite it's (Moon's) significantly eccentric orbit! Tell this fairy tale to someone else!!!

Your idea of significantly eccentric is different than mine and anyone who looks at an ellipse with those dimensions. Regardless, why is this difficult for you to believe? Do you think it's not possible, or simply unlikely?

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating.

Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

What is interesting here to notice is that heliocentrists had been used the same paradigm/mechanics (perfectly synchronized rotation of the Moon) even before they decided that the Moon circles around the Earth once per month instead of once per day!!!

They just DRAMATICALLY changed the alleged speed of rotation and orbital speed of the Moon as well as alleged distances between celestial "bodies"!!!

Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.

The change from the untenable fixed-earth geocentric model to heliocentric model required different motions of the celestial bodies. Not only did the heliocentric model explain observations better, it was vastly simpler. Some people didn't like it. Tough!

So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)

Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:

Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says

Publisher: Dumfries : Printed and engraved for the author, James Gillespie, 1890. Sounds like what we now call a vanity publication. "Subjects    Astronomy -- Religious aspects." Yet another 19^th-Century crank.

What does the '*' in your citation refer to? There was no footnote accompanying your post.

" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''

Can you make sense what is being said here. Please explain what you think he's trying to say. Inhabited? Seriously?

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Nope... the Moon's orbit fits right in with the rest of the heliocentric model. Its orbit about earth is the same direction as virtually all the bodies in the solar system (all of the major ones and almost all - by a vast majority - of the rest), and the same direction as the Earth's rotation. Mr. Bauer's insistence that the diurnal ("once daily") motion of the heavenly bodies not being due to the simple rotation of the Earth, and stamping his foot and insisting the Copernican model won't work, is simply more balderdash of the type cikljamas usually cites.

<repeated already-debunked (several times) stuff> http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/58895023636888751082.jpg

This illustration is incorrect. The Moon's path around the Sun is actually concave toward the Sun everywhere; it doesn't have the loop-the-loops "shewn" here.

The second illustration, if you ignore the bizarre "whooshes" instead of a closed orbit, stretch the dots (and wavy line) so that 12 of them take up a bit less than a full orbit, and pick one position for the Sun - 'C' looks OK for the purpose of the illustration - is somewhat closer than the one above it. It's still grossly exaggerated in the sinuosity of the path of the moon though. As already mentioned, since the radius of the Moon's orbit about the Earth is only about 1/400 of the radius of the Earth's orbit about the Sun, the path the Moon traces around the Sun is always concave toward the Sun, with a very slight sinuosity. This may seem strange, but it's true!

Secondly, how about the "EOT" problem regarding the Moon?

What problem? There isn't one. You're just confused again.

The speed of the Moon = 0,0041 degrees per second
The speed of the Sun = 0,00000039 degrees per second

Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?

It's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time. 

Thirdly, during a central eclipse, the Moon's umbra (or antumbra, in the case of an annular eclipse) moves rapidly from west to east across the Earth. The Earth is also rotating from west to east, at about 28 km/min at the Equator, but as the Moon is moving in the same direction as the Earth's spin at about 61 km/min, the umbra almost always appears to move in a roughly west-east direction across a map of the Earth at the speed of the Moon's orbital velocity minus the Earth's rotational velocity.

--3660 km/h (alleged speed of the Moon) - 1660 (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator) = 2000 km/h (the speed of umbra/antumbra)

--3660 km/h - 850 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at Oslo) = 2810 km/h

--3660 km/h - 0 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole) = 3660 km/h

Is this in accordance with reality???

20 March 2015 — Total Solar Eclipse

It's a Total Solar Eclipse in Svalbard (Norway) and the Faroe Islands, and a Partial Solar Eclipse in Europe, northern and eastern Asia and northern and western Africa The eclipse starts at 7:41am UTC. The maximum point (totality) begins at 09:45am UTC and will last for 2 minutes and 47 seconds.

If your numbers are right, then, since the shadow is moving across the surface mostly eastward at 2810 km/h (using Oslo's latitude), it travels about 130 km in 2m 47s; this means the diameter of the umbra is about 130 km at maximum eclipse. The circumstances of maximum eclipse give a path width of 463 km with a Sun Altitude of 18.5°, pretty low in the sky, meaning the shadow is stretched out in the N-S direction and we need to multiply the width by sine(Sun Alt) to get a rough approximation of the diameter (this isn't exact, but is reasonably close). This gives 146 km - definitely in the ballpark. Is there supposed to be a problem here?

21 August 2017 — Total Solar Eclipse

The total solar eclipse will be visible from most locations in the United States and Canada.

This eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse visible from contiguous United States since 1979. The total phase of the eclipse will be visible from locations spanning from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States. The last time this happened was during the June 8, 1918 total solar eclipse.

Parts of Western Europe and northern and western South America will experience a partial solar eclipse.

The eclipse will begin at 03:47 p.m. (15:47) UTC. The maximum point of the eclipse will take place near Hopkinsville, Kentucky at 06:22 p.m. (18:22) UTC. Totality will last for 2 mins 40 secs.

http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdisk/2001-2100/SE2017Aug21T.gif

From http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEprime/2001-2100/SE2017Aug21Tprime.html:
Greatest Duration   TD: 18:21:49.0   Lat: 37°34.6'N   Sun Alt: 63.8°   Path Width: 114.5 km   Duration: 02m40.25s

Surface speed (using your numbers)
 = 3660 km/h (speed of the Moon) - 1660 km/h (tangential velocity at equator) * cos(lat)
 = 3660 km/h - 1660 km/h * cos(37.577°)
 = 3660 km/h - 1316 km/h
 = 2344 km/h

Diameter of umbra at surface
 = 2344 km/h * 2.667min
 = 104 km

Path width * sin (Sun Alt)
 = 114.5 * sin( 63.8 )
 = 103 km

Quite close; the higher sun angle makes this a better approximation. Your analysis again confirms the conventional model.

About this supposed eclipse that happened in Britain.. how can it just be mostly visible over there? If the Moon really does come in  between the Sun and Earth on a round earth fake model .. than half the Earth visible towards the Sun should be COMPLETELY DARK.. yet that never happens with any of these eclipses.

England is the head of the Royal Pagan bloodlines.. they aren't from Jesus or anyone holy as they proclaim.
They have such rituals as eclipses and worshipping of the sun. Sunday of course comes from that ..

Also so called 'Prince' William was born on a solar eclipse and many pagans celebrated that the King they had been waiting for was born.
Perhaps the AntiChrist? who knows... but the fact is they faked this eclipse to give importance to him that somehow the cosmos were giving a sign..

The fact is the Sun and Moon.. created by Allah the one God .. do not bow to any human or get eclipsed or blocked.

And than those Red Blood Moons... they released these fancy charts going back centuries of when the so called last Tetrad of Blood Moons had happened .. and just magically it seems to coincide with important Jewish historical events... this is all designed to make the Jews feel Special and to be able to make them believe their 'Messiah' is here.. who actually will be the Anti Christ.. opposed to Jesus Christ.. who was just a messenger .. that he will make clear to the Christians when he comes back.. Since the time of Adam.. God was always one.. as is stated in Islam..that is what Prophet Adam pbuh preached... Enoch... Noah.. Abraham.. Joseph.. Solomon.. Moses.. Jesus and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. Never were any of them revealed a message by God stating he had a family or a Son or Mary the Mother..

For anyone with even the slightest rational thinking still in their souls.. its plain to see that the Roman Pagans that ruled over Palestine during Jesus's time.. introduced this pagan doctrine called Trinity... Jesus was a human. .it is way below God himself to turn himself into a human when that is HIS CREATION.. he is far and above and holy.. to suggest God defecated.. or used the restroom. or needed to feel human suffering? He is the one who created humans himself.. he knows how we work better than even we could ever..

So all this paganism has infected all of society.. including these staged eclipses..

The fact that these so called eclipses occur in just random spots instead of half the Earth being dark.. and the fact that you NEVER see any celestial body in front of the Sun approaching it.. we only see it when it actually starts being on top of the sun.. goes to show the complete charade..

Allah makes clear in the Quran.. that the Sun and Moon CANNOT catchup or night and day cannot outstrip each other...

The reason this alleged fake so called rare eclipse was staged in Britain is that this year William turns 33... and as everyone knows thats a very important Satanic Illuminati number.. Some have even suggested that he might proclaim to be the Messiah of the Jews.. and the savior of the world (ya right).. so to set all this up.. and make the Jewish rabbis and their flock believe this... these events have to be staged.. From the eclipse on his birth.. to now in his 33 years of age.. all of this has PAGAN ritual written all over this.

HOLY QURAN sura 36, verse 40:
"The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
I just realized how we have been lied to.
If you lookup on Google pictures of lunar or solar eclipses from any decade before...1940 1950 or 1960 you Never see any pictures or video...are you kidding me?
And the way these so called eclipses occur: it's as if they are SLIPPING a piece of something or projection on to the moon or sun for these eclipses.
For example during a so called solar eclipse (meaning during the day)... If something truly was about to pass in FRONT of the Sun... WE WOULD SEE IT Coming... Yet we only see alleged 'moon' ONLY when it starts flying right in front of the Sun..what they are doing is creating an ILLUSION somehow where they use projectors... It's as if something from Earth or the atmosphere is used to fly over and block the sun and moon.

The first pictures available for these fake eclipses start popping up in 1970.. Right after the fake Moon landings.. Since there is a Ice Firmament 100 miles above or so
..that cannot be crossed as stated in the Quran and Bible.

since I know and many know the Earth is flat and the Sun and Moon each have their own orbit and neither can catch up on one and other since one is for day and one for night..paraphrasing the Quran... And also in the Bible it mentions clearly that the Sun and Moon have orbits not Earth.

These eclipses work great with the Satanic Pagan Nasa new age model by basically trying to give God the middle finger... And to make fun of his great signs and creation.
In the Bible and Quran it mentions how the Sun and Moon are SIGNS from God...so why would God 'block' his OWN signs... Unless this is a VERY recent phoenomena..
All these silly colored eclipses like the blood Moons with the red coloring.. How silly...these Satan worshippers at Nasa and all over the world now.. At the UN just look at the flag for the UN it's FLAT... They all have been playing a big game with us... To basically drive us to hell with Satan.. And disconnect us from Allah/God... They will do anything.. Nothing is out of the question... Are indoctrination since we were born goes very DEEP and thus EVERYTHING we were taught MUST be questioned.
One of the biggest arguments these New World Order zombies state is that a lunar eclipse isn't possible in a Flat Earth Model... Well the Earth is fixed... And those two.. The sun and moon have Orbits... They had to invent these eclipses as another way of denying the flatness of Earth.
Water never curves on the horizon... Weather balloons sent up 50 miles even show a FLAT horizon...what your gut always told you since you were a kid has been right..Round Earther Satanists state that the Earth rotates at about 1,000mph on its axis... Or 16 miles a minute or about .27 miles a second.. So let's say someone jumped off a tree and it took 5 seconds to fall down to the ground... According to the round earth Satan model the person should be About 1.5 miles away!??
Yet they are not. ThThey always end up right where they started.
If a pickup truck is moving and you jump off of it you will fall... Also if a truck is going East and the Earth allegedly rotates East on its axis... Than when you jump up from a flat bed truck you should be ahead of the truck in the round earth model yet more than likely you will just end up falling off the truck.
sura 21, verse 33:
"(God is) the One Who created the night,and day, the sun and the moon.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."

These Blood Red Moons.. as I was saying.. how do they even turn red? This is such a sick joke.
The Moon does not change color .. Red is the color of satan.. of blood.. of evil.. God's creations are beautiful and perfect..

So no the Moon doesn't turn Red every few centuries.. that is plain non sense and more paganism.

Man... I'm glad I don't live anywhere near this texasusaguy!

The guy's obviously a total fruit loop LOL.

Or—more than likely—just another bored TROLL.