I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
That video doesn't have enough info to show if it is the moon or something else, however if you do the math, that round object is where the moon should be.
As such, that black sun is the moon. I don't care if the ancients called in Rahu. We call it the moon.
No point having multiple names for the same thing.
In order to show the moon not eclipsing the sun you need to show us a video of the eclipse where you can still see the moon. Especially as the moon should be quite close to the sun in apparent position as it is a new moon.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
That statement is just as meaningful as your other mantra, which is to say, not meaningful at all.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
Yeah, sure...
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Just because you expect to see something doesn't mean it's actually possible to see it. Have you calculated how bright the earth-lit side of the moon would is when viewed from earth? Have you compared that to how bright the sun's inner corona and prominences are? If you haven't done that, you're just guessing whether it should be visible or not. If you have calculated this, let's see your data.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
It's easily seen with the naked eye after sunset for several days after the new moon, and before sunrise for several days before a new moon. It used to be called "the old moon in the new moon's arms" and has been known since long before photography was invented. Whether
you've seen it or not is irrelevant.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.
Yes. It's the non-sunlit side of the moon. It's much darker than the sun is, so it appears black by comparison.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.
Um, no... it's visible in silhouette.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><worthless video>
In the segment referenced, the narrator intones about "spectrum analyzing" some images in photoshop (whatever the hell that means - I think he's comparing the brightness of the part of the image where the sun is visible to the parts where it's not), and seems to be perplexed because "there's nothing there" where the moon is blocking the direct sunlight. "Nothing there", as in, no direct sunlight? Well, duh!
After cranking the gain way up, the part of the images nearest the sun does show a low-level of light that decreases away from the unobscured sun. Big surprise there, too: real optical systems aren't perfect and scatter some light. Also, there was something about chemtrails, an image created by some instrument he says he doesn't understand, and "top people" working on whatever "issues" he seems to think exist in those images.
[Pro Tip] If you're going to be doing radiometric measurements from images, don't use compressed images like jpegs.
The scene following 4:00 has a couple of rubes declaiming that "shadows are in the wrong place" without any information about where they are compared to where they "should be" and why they're expected to be somewhere else. I
Based on the part I saw, I give that video one and one-half stars for production value, but zero stars for content. I quit watching at about 4:45 since it was another obvious waste of time.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.