Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

Quote from: zork on September 04, 2017, 10:13:40 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 07:54:52 AM

No you are incorrect.

The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .

I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.

Are you familiar with an App called Google ?

I thought we are talking about flat earth here. Or you have turned and believe now round earth? As you talk how you know how fast sun and moon move around round earth.

The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

You said it was over Asia during the eclipse.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2017, 10:44:47 AM

You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.

So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?

It is obviously not in front of the sun.

On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.

Lol.

Lol, indeed.

The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

Wrong.

You mean this?



1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

2. It was explained here:

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.

There also appears to be some vignetting in the optical system - this makes the corners darker than the center of the image.

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

No, it shows the narrator simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but you want to believe him anyway.

Assuming you mean "image brightness" when you say "spectrum", it shows an abrupt change from the very bright visible part of the sun to the rest of the image, which is almost perfectly black. The fact that the part of the image is not perfectly black where the sun isn't visible is due to very low levels of scattered light. Nothing more.

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

"Roughly 15 degrees" isn't the same as "15 degrees". On average, in an hour the moon moves 14.5° across the sky, although this can vary through the day due to parallax, and can reach up to about 14.75° per hour under certain circumstances. On average, the sun moves exactly 15° across the sky and doesn't vary from that by more than one part in about 1 in 3000. That overall quarter to half-degree per hour difference is substantial.

The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .

No, that's incorrect. The moon moves eastward against the background stars faster than the sun does, but moves more slowly in its diurnal motion (because it's moving faster in the same direction as the earth rotates).

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

Do you mean at about 4:54 in the video? There a commentator says "it's 1:30 here in Cincinnati and this is supposed to happen at 2:30" (with ominous background sounds added to the soundtrack), followed by a title slide "THIS GUY NOTICED THE TIME WAS OFF." Cincinnati, Ohio is on Eastern Daylight Time, so he must be talking about 13:30 EDT. Instead of "at 13:30 on the video" you must have meant "at 13:30 EDT from Cincinnati, Ohio." Sloppy.

"This Guy" doesn't say what "this" refers to, but the time of maximum eclipse in downtown Cincinnati was 18:29 UT. That's 14:29 EDT since EDT is 4 hours behind UT (2:29 PM EDT, obviously "This Guy's" 2:30 when "it" is supposed to happen). The beginning of the partial eclipse was almost 1.5 hours earlier, 17:01 UT (1:01 PM EDT) in Cincinnati, so it was already well along at 1:26 EDT, when the first comments about the timing being off were made by "This Guy" in the video.

And, instead of "an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun", what actually happened was: an hour before NASA predicted the middle of the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the moon has already started blocking the sun. The latter, unfortunately for you and the producer of the video, is exactly what was expected (ominous soundtrack notwithstanding).

At 4:52, "This Guy" said "I don't understand." He got that part right! The producer of the video doesn't understand, either, but doesn't explicitly admit it.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.

Well, instead of just making bold assertions and handwaving, why don't we see?

The apparent size of both moon and sun are both close to 0.5°, and the moon moves eastward with respect to the sun at 0.5° per hour on average over a year.

If they were perfectly aligned, that is, the center of the moon passed directly in front of the center of the sun, the edge of the moon would start to encroach on the edge of the sun (first contact) while the center of the moon was 0.5° from the center of the sun. Absent other factors, and if those 0.5° approximations were exact (the sizes are close), this would be exactly 1 hour before mid-eclipse.

But there is another significant factor: the earth rotates. At Cincy's latitude (39.1° N), it is moving toward the east at about 800 miles/hour. In the 1.5 hours between first contact (1:01 PM EDT) and mid-eclipse (2:29) our observer has moved about 1200 miles eastward. 1200 miles of lateral movement relative to the distance to the moon, 240,000 miles, causes about 0.25° parallax, "slowing down" the relative movement between sun and moon, so there's another half hour between first contact and mid-eclipse. Note that this is the vestige of cikljamas' "zig-zag" movement of the moon. It never reverses direction as he insists it "should", but the moon, since it's relatively close to the earth, does speed up and slow down slightly, but in a measurable amount, in its apparent motion across the sky over the course of a day.

The eclipse wasn't perfectly aligned when viewed from Cincinnati, and those three half-degree values, while close approximations, aren't exact, but this back of an envelope calculation is right in line with what was actually predicted and observed.

Nothing to see here, folks, except yet another bogus flat-earth video. Not only is what was observed and commented on not impossible, it's exactly what the model predicts.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Nah... it's your understanding of what's happening that doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified. If you think that's acceptable, then that's your problem.

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

Totality lasts a few minutes .

So as you have just said    the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.

Your model doesn't match reality .

How so?

The maximum length of totality depends mostly on how much larger the apparent size of the moon is than the apparent size of the sun. There are a few other factors that are smaller but still can be significant, as well.

For the recent eclipse, the magnitude was 1.0306[nb]https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2017Aug21T.GIF[/nb], which means the apparent diameter of the moon was 3.06% larger than the apparent diameter of the sun[nb]Glossary of Solar Eclipse Terminology - eclipse magnitude[/nb]. Semi-diameter of the sun at greatest eclipse (GE) was 15' 48.7" (diameter = 31' 37.4" = 31.623'), so the diameter of the moon at GE was 32.591', a difference of 0.968', or 0.0161°. Using 0.5°/hr for the motion of the moon relative to the sun, the duration of maximum eclipse would be 0.0161° / (0.5°/hr) = 0.0322 hr = 1.93 minutes. This is in line with the 2.67 minute maximum duration of this eclipse, especially considering that several factors have been ignored, like the rotation of the earth, which can extend the length of totality (depending on latitude - greatest effect at the equator), and the azimuth angle of the path, which will reduce the length of totality (least effect if it's due east).

Not impossible at all. The model matches reality brilliantly, even if you don't like it and refuse to admit it! It predicted the recent eclipse quite well; just another win for the spherical earth as part of the heliocentric model of the solar system. This is only one of the latest in an unbroken, centuries-long, string of wins for it.

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.
 

You speak absolute nonsense.

Projecting again I see.

The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

If you wish to claim the black sun is not the moon, then yes it does.

Remember your argument? The moon should be visible in the sky during the day, yet you couldn't see it during the solar eclipse.

It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.

It isn't up to you.

The video below clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

No it doesn't. (I assume you mean the video you previously linked)
It shows a round object getting in front of the sun. You cannot tell (based upon this video) if it is the moon or not.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You mean as an object that is a crescent?
The pathetic analysis they did still clearly shows there is something blocking the light from the sun.

Even if you wish to look at the region shown in blue, that still shows there is something blocking the light from the sun, it just shows (if properly understood) that this object is outside the atmosphere (as this blue region is from the atmosphere scattering the light).
Perhaps the simplest way to do this is to overlay a circle based upon the visible section of the circle of the sun.
For the first image shown, this has the circle of the sun at the top (the visible part of it) with a large blue region going away from it.
But if you compare that to where the circle of the sun would be at the opposite side, it just has a very thin blue region outside it.
The other way is to simply note that this blue region is not circularly symmetric.

So no, it shows that there is something blocking the light of the sun outside the atmosphere.

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

Is that because that claim is pure bullshit and the light is not evenly distributed?

Why are you expecting us to explain something that doesn't exist?

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

You mean baselessly claimed it?

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

Yes, it has an apparent motion of very roughly 15 degrees. Less roughly it would be closer to 14.5 degrees, with the sun moving 15 degrees.

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

You mean before they predicted totality?
And no, I still see no sign of this black sun in any video you have posted so far. I have no idea which video you are talking about now though.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated  few degrees away to the observer at 13:30  .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

No. This is exactly what is expected in the HC model.
The sun apparently moves at 15 degrees an hour.
The moon apparently moves at 14.5 degrees an hour.
That means the apparent speed of the moon relative to the sun is -0.5 degrees an hour.

The angular diameter of the sun is 0.5 degrees.

As such, 1 hour before totality, the moon should start to partially eclipse the sun. It should continue moving at a rate of 0.5 degrees an hour, and thus 1 hour later (at totality) completely eclipse the sun.

So the HC model does match reality.

If you wish to assert such crap you will need far more than just asserting the moon should be a few degrees away.

What it isn't expected in is the FE model, which can't even explain the apparent motion of the sun and moon.

Quote from: markjo on September 04, 2017, 07:13:31 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 06:56:19 AM

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

Yes, but how fast does the moon move relative to the sun (which also moves 15 degrees per hour)?

No you are incorrect.

How can he be incorrect when he just asked a question?

Or are you suggesting the sun doesn't appear to move 15 degrees per hour?

Or are you just projecting again for your upcoming lie?

The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .

No. The sun appears to move faster than the moon.

Are you familiar with an App called Google ?

Yes, we are, and we find numbers that match reality and support the HC model.
What we don't find is any sound backing for your baseless claims.
Instead I find things like this:
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
Which disagree with you and say that the moon's apparent westerly motion is slowly than the sun's.

So we are asking you, for you to provide actual numbers which can then be compared with reality, as using google clearly wont help get you to admit you are wrong.

Incorrect.
Totality lasts a few minutes .

He did not say how long totality lasts.
He merely said there would be 1 hour from first contact to totality.

Totality will last a variable amount of time based upon the distance from you to the moon and from the moon to the sun (a minor contributor).
For some eclipses, there will not be a period of totality.

So as you have just said    the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.
Your model doesn't match reality .

Why does that make the solar eclipse impossible?

During a total solar eclipse, the angular diameter of the moon is slightly larger than the sun (for example, lets say the sun is 0.5 degrees and the moon is 0.55 degrees). The moon moves at 0.5 degrees per minute. That means you have first contact at some time. Then, 0.5 degrees of the moon's movement later (or 1 hour), the moon is completely covering the sun resulting in totality. This time continues until the other side of the moon stop's obstructing the sun. That is 0.55-0.5 degrees or 0.05 degrees later, so 6 minutes. Then after another hour (0.5 degrees), the moon is not blocking the sun at all and the eclipse is over.

So you have first contact, the start of the partial eclipse.
Then 1 hour later you get second contact, the start of the total eclipse.
Then 6 minutes later you get third contact, the end of the total eclipse.
Then 1 hour later you get 4th contact, the end of the partial eclipse.
In reality, the exact sizes and speeds will be slightly different giving some difference from these round numbers.

So no, the HC model DOES MATCH REALITY!

If you wish to assert the HC model doesn't match reality you will need a lot more than the garbage you are spouting to justify it.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 06:56:19 AM

The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

You said it was over Asia during the eclipse.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2017, 10:44:47 AM

You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.

So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?

It is obviously not in front of the sun.

On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.

Lol.

Lol, indeed.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 06:56:19 AM

The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

Wrong.

You mean this?



1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

2. It was explained here:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 03, 2017, 01:40:34 PM

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.

There also appears to be some vignetting in the optical system - this makes the corners darker than the center of the image.

Quote

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

No, it shows the narrator simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but you want to believe him anyway.

Assuming you mean "image brightness" when you say "spectrum", it shows an abrupt change from the very bright visible part of the sun to the rest of the image, which is almost perfectly black. The fact that the part of the image is not perfectly black where the sun isn't visible is due to very low levels of scattered light. Nothing more.

Quote

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

"Roughly 15 degrees" isn't the same as "15 degrees". On average, in an hour the moon moves 14.5° across the sky, although this can vary through the day due to parallax, and can reach up to about 14.75° per hour under certain circumstances. On average, the sun moves exactly 15° across the sky and doesn't vary from that by more than one part in about 1 in 3000. That overall quarter to half-degree per hour difference is substantial.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 07:54:52 AM

The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .

No, that's incorrect. The moon moves eastward against the background stars faster than the sun does, but moves more slowly in its diurnal motion (because it's moving faster in the same direction as the earth rotates).

Quote

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

Do you mean at about 4:54 in the video? There a commentator says "it's 1:30 here in Cincinnati and this is supposed to happen at 2:30" (with ominous background sounds added to the soundtrack), followed by a title slide "THIS GUY NOTICED THE TIME WAS OFF." Cincinnati, Ohio is on Eastern Daylight Time, so he must be talking about 13:30 EDT. Instead of "at 13:30 on the video" you must have meant "at 13:30 EDT from Cincinnati, Ohio." Sloppy.

"This Guy" doesn't say what "this" refers to, but the time of maximum eclipse in downtown Cincinnati was 18:29 UT. That's 14:29 EDT since EDT is 4 hours behind UT (2:29 PM EDT, obviously "This Guy's" 2:30 when "it" is supposed to happen). The beginning of the partial eclipse was almost 1.5 hours earlier, 17:01 UT (1:01 PM EDT) in Cincinnati, so it was already well along at 1:26 EDT, when the first comments about the timing being off were made by "This Guy" in the video.

And, instead of "an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun", what actually happened was: an hour before NASA predicted the middle of the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the moon has already started blocking the sun. The latter, unfortunately for you and the producer of the video, is exactly what was expected (ominous soundtrack notwithstanding).

At 4:52, "This Guy" said "I don't understand." He got that part right! The producer of the video doesn't understand, either, but doesn't explicitly admit it.

Quote

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.

Well, instead of just making bold assertions and handwaving, why don't we see?

The apparent size of both moon and sun are both close to 0.5°, and the moon moves eastward with respect to the sun at 0.5° per hour on average over a year.

If they were perfectly aligned, that is, the center of the moon passed directly in front of the center of the sun, the edge of the moon would start to encroach on the edge of the sun (first contact) while the center of the moon was 0.5° from the center of the sun. Absent other factors, and if those 0.5° approximations were exact (the sizes are close), this would be exactly 1 hour before mid-eclipse.

But there is another significant factor: the earth rotates. At Cincy's latitude (39.1° N), it is moving toward the east at about 800 miles/hour. In the 1.5 hours between first contact (1:01 PM EDT) and mid-eclipse (2:29) our observer has moved about 1200 miles eastward. 1200 miles of lateral movement relative to the distance to the moon, 240,000 miles, causes about 0.25° parallax, "slowing down" the relative movement between sun and moon, so there's another half hour between first contact and mid-eclipse. Note that this is the vestige of cikljamas' "zig-zag" movement of the moon. It never reverses direction as he insists it "should", but the moon, since it's relatively close to the earth, does speed up and slow down slightly, but in a measurable amount, in its apparent motion across the sky over the course of a day.

The eclipse wasn't perfectly aligned when viewed from Cincinnati, and those three half-degree values, while close approximations, aren't exact, but this back of an envelope calculation is right in line with what was actually predicted and observed.

Nothing to see here, folks, except yet another bogus flat-earth video. Not only is what was observed and commented on not impossible, it's exactly what the model predicts.

Quote

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Nah... it's your understanding of what's happening that doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified. If you think that's acceptable, then that's your problem.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

Perhaps not, but it is consistent with a severely back lit moon as a silhouette.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 06:56:19 AM

The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

You said it was over Asia during the eclipse.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2017, 10:44:47 AM

You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.

So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?

It is obviously not in front of the sun.

On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.

Lol.

Lol, indeed.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 06:56:19 AM

The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

Wrong.

You mean this?



1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

2. It was explained here:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 03, 2017, 01:40:34 PM

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.

There also appears to be some vignetting in the optical system - this makes the corners darker than the center of the image.

Quote

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

No, it shows the narrator simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but you want to believe him anyway.

Assuming you mean "image brightness" when you say "spectrum", it shows an abrupt change from the very bright visible part of the sun to the rest of the image, which is almost perfectly black. The fact that the part of the image is not perfectly black where the sun isn't visible is due to very low levels of scattered light. Nothing more.

Quote

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

"Roughly 15 degrees" isn't the same as "15 degrees". On average, in an hour the moon moves 14.5° across the sky, although this can vary through the day due to parallax, and can reach up to about 14.75° per hour under certain circumstances. On average, the sun moves exactly 15° across the sky and doesn't vary from that by more than one part in about 1 in 3000. That overall quarter to half-degree per hour difference is substantial.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 04, 2017, 07:54:52 AM

The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .

No, that's incorrect. The moon moves eastward against the background stars faster than the sun does, but moves more slowly in its diurnal motion (because it's moving faster in the same direction as the earth rotates).

Quote

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

Do you mean at about 4:54 in the video? There a commentator says "it's 1:30 here in Cincinnati and this is supposed to happen at 2:30" (with ominous background sounds added to the soundtrack), followed by a title slide "THIS GUY NOTICED THE TIME WAS OFF." Cincinnati, Ohio is on Eastern Daylight Time, so he must be talking about 13:30 EDT. Instead of "at 13:30 on the video" you must have meant "at 13:30 EDT from Cincinnati, Ohio." Sloppy.

"This Guy" doesn't say what "this" refers to, but the time of maximum eclipse in downtown Cincinnati was 18:29 UT. That's 14:29 EDT since EDT is 4 hours behind UT (2:29 PM EDT, obviously "This Guy's" 2:30 when "it" is supposed to happen). The beginning of the partial eclipse was almost 1.5 hours earlier, 17:01 UT (1:01 PM EDT) in Cincinnati, so it was already well along at 1:26 EDT, when the first comments about the timing being off were made by "This Guy" in the video.

And, instead of "an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun", what actually happened was: an hour before NASA predicted the middle of the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the moon has already started blocking the sun. The latter, unfortunately for you and the producer of the video, is exactly what was expected (ominous soundtrack notwithstanding).

At 4:52, "This Guy" said "I don't understand." He got that part right! The producer of the video doesn't understand, either, but doesn't explicitly admit it.

Quote

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.

Well, instead of just making bold assertions and handwaving, why don't we see?

The apparent size of both moon and sun are both close to 0.5°, and the moon moves eastward with respect to the sun at 0.5° per hour on average over a year.

If they were perfectly aligned, that is, the center of the moon passed directly in front of the center of the sun, the edge of the moon would start to encroach on the edge of the sun (first contact) while the center of the moon was 0.5° from the center of the sun. Absent other factors, and if those 0.5° approximations were exact (the sizes are close), this would be exactly 1 hour before mid-eclipse.

But there is another significant factor: the earth rotates. At Cincy's latitude (39.1° N), it is moving toward the east at about 800 miles/hour. In the 1.5 hours between first contact (1:01 PM EDT) and mid-eclipse (2:29) our observer has moved about 1200 miles eastward. 1200 miles of lateral movement relative to the distance to the moon, 240,000 miles, causes about 0.25° parallax, "slowing down" the relative movement between sun and moon, so there's another half hour between first contact and mid-eclipse. Note that this is the vestige of cikljamas' "zig-zag" movement of the moon. It never reverses direction as he insists it "should", but the moon, since it's relatively close to the earth, does speed up and slow down slightly, but in a measurable amount, in its apparent motion across the sky over the course of a day.

The eclipse wasn't perfectly aligned when viewed from Cincinnati, and those three half-degree values, while close approximations, aren't exact, but this back of an envelope calculation is right in line with what was actually predicted and observed.

Nothing to see here, folks, except yet another bogus flat-earth video. Not only is what was observed and commented on not impossible, it's exactly what the model predicts.

Quote

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Nah... it's your understanding of what's happening that doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified. If you think that's acceptable, then that's your problem.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

So which is it?  Is there no object or is there an object called the black sun?

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Too bad. We've tried to help you understand. You either still don't understand, or refuse to admit that you do understand and were wrong. So be it; that's your problem.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?

No.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The missing circular section of the sun's disk is a good sign. If the moon were invisible, that part wouldn't be missing.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

That repetition is getting a bit tedious. Do you have anything rational to back that statement up? Sayin' it don't make it so.

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

Does your current tack mean you've given up on your assertion that videos from the flat earthers' high altitude weather balloons would "debunk the globe", and are now reduced to making noise? Should I stop asking about them?

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Again, I already know that. You won't find it acceptable because it doesn't agree with your delusions.
If you think they are unacceptable, then explain why.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

No it doesn't.
It clearly demonstrates that the light is not evenly distributed around the sun and that there is an object blocking the light from the sun which is outside the atmosphere or outside the camera.

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

So are you claiming that during a solar eclipse the sun changes shape? That it changes shape, getting a circular cutout until it disappears and reappears on the other side with the circular cutout being removed? If so, that goes completely against your claim of a black sun obstructing the light from the sun. It also goes directly against the observations of countless others that only saw a partial eclipse or no eclipse.

So not only is that argument pure bullshit, you also need to admit it is crap if you want any chance of it being the black sun obstructing the sun.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

No. Are you blind?
The image clearly shows that the light is not what you would expect for a round sun, which is what the sun is. Remember, during the solar eclipse, not everyone saw it as an eclipse.

The video clearly shows there is a round object obscuring the sun, blocking the light from the sun.
As the moon was meant to be there and is the only object in the sky capable of doing such, that object was the moon.

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

No. It isn't our moon which is magic, it is yours.
In the HC reality, the moon simply passes in front of the sun causing a solar eclipse.
In your delusional fantasy land, right before it does, it magically disappears to be replaced by the black sun which then causes the eclipse just like the moon would have, only to magically disappear and have the moon magically reappear.

So there is no sign of your magic moon and magic black sun.
There is just a sign of the moon blocking the sun.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

No. The HC model does match reality (at least when discussing the solar system). This has been observed and verified.
It is just your pathetic crap which doesn't match reality.
You are yet to point out a problem with the HC model which you have been able to justify. Instead you have just lied and claimed there were problems and been completely unable to rationally justify them.
Instead we have pointed out the flaws in your lies and strawmen of the HC model.

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

What you find unacceptable is of no consequence!

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

Rubbish, it proves nothing of the sort.

The light reaching the atmosphere would be exactly the same whether:

• the sun was that shape,
• part of the sun was hidden by your imaginary  rahu or
• part of the sun was hidden by the real moon.

Any low-level light around the sun is from scattering in the atmosphere.

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

Why would you expect the unlit side of the moon to be seen when it is an unlit object, and hence black, against a black background?
So, of course, the "video shows there is no sign of" the "disappearing and reappearing moon".

Please explain what else anyone would expect to see!

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

So you say! But you've been proven wrong so many time before that we have learned to take no notice or your words.

But, once again you are totally incorrect and only get your information from the rubbish in YouTube videos.

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.

But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc.

Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:

• Saros cycles,
• The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
• The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.

If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.

But, this eclipse has again proven that
PS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 05, 2017, 11:30:51 AM

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Too bad. We've tried to help you understand. You either still don't understand, or refuse to admit that you do understand and were wrong. So be it; that's your problem.

Quote

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?

No.

Quote

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

Quote

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

Quote

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The missing circular section of the sun's disk is a good sign. If the moon were invisible, that part wouldn't be missing.

Quote

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

That repetition is getting a bit tedious. Do you have anything rational to back that statement up? Sayin' it don't make it so.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

Does your current tack mean you've given up on your assertion that videos from the flat earthers' high altitude weather balloons would "debunk the globe", and are now reduced to making noise? Should I stop asking about them?

I find your explanation unsatisfactory.

 The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

You speak nonsense .

The image provided shows the light to be evenly distributed around the Sun .

The image shows that the light is not scattered because it shows the same pattern and density all around the Eclipsed Sun .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

Incorrect .

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .


The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 05, 2017, 02:32:28 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 05, 2017, 11:30:51 AM

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Too bad. We've tried to help you understand. You either still don't understand, or refuse to admit that you do understand and were wrong. So be it; that's your problem.

Quote

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

Are you blind mate ?

No.

Quote

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

Quote

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

Quote

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The missing circular section of the sun's disk is a good sign. If the moon were invisible, that part wouldn't be missing.

Quote

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

That repetition is getting a bit tedious. Do you have anything rational to back that statement up? Sayin' it don't make it so.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

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.

Does your current tack mean you've given up on your assertion that videos from the flat earthers' high altitude weather balloons would "debunk the globe", and are now reduced to making noise? Should I stop asking about them?

I find your explanation unsatisfactory.

thats the problem: you find the explanation unsatisfactory. that does not mean the explanation is wrong, you are simple not able to understand the explanation.

This ability can based on you mental capacity to understand it or the unwilling to understand it.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 05, 2017, 02:32:28 PM

 The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

You speak nonsense .

The image provided shows the light to be evenly distributed around the Sun .

The image shows that the light is not scattered because it shows the same pattern and density all around the Eclipsed Sun .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

please present us the scientific background why we expect something else than what we see during the solar eclipse by the moon.

show us the scientific research of the difference of a solar eclipse caused by the moon or by a black sun.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 05, 2017, 02:32:28 PM

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

Incorrect .

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .


The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

again: please present the base of your claim what we should expect to see during a solar eclipse.

till now you only writing about stuff that you think what you would expect to see.
but as you do not have any proven scientific background, you have to show us where do you base your believes on.

you can believe anything you want, but as soon you claim that your believe is the truth you have to prove it.

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

But it isn't a waning crescent. At the time of the eclipse other people saw the sun as a circle.
Are you having your sun being pure magic and appear significantly different to different people?

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

No. You need to understand what is producing this light.
It is not light that is coming directly from the sun. The massive difference in colour shows this to be the case.
This light likely comes from scattering in the atmosphere, or imperfections in the camera.

As such, all this shows is that the obstruction is either outside the atmosphere or outside the camera.

And remember, this garbage would apply equally to your black sun BS. So do you admit there is no black sun?

It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

No, it would be exactly as expected.
When the moon blocks the light of the sun, the light of the sun reaching the atmosphere would act just like what it would if the sun really was a waning crescent, at least for the local region.
So no, That is exactly what we would expect.

If you wish to demonstrate otherwise, then get a medium (perhaps a block of jelly) and a bright light source such that when you analyse the light in a similar manner to the video coming directly from the light source (not through the medium) it appears as a clear circle, and when you analyse it through the Jelly, it has that ring of scattered light around it. Now get an opaque disc to act as an obstruction and block part of the light coming from the source, and see what happens.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

No. It does match reality (for the solar system anyway). All you have is pathetic crap which you spout to pretend it doesn't.

So far all you have is just pathetic baseless assertions. You can't even explain why, you just assert.
If you wish to claim it doesn't match reality, then do the experiments, do the math, show that what the HC model predicts is not what is observed, rather than just asserting that it isn't.

The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 04, 2017, 12:31:59 PM

You mean this?

1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.

I find your explanation unsatisfactory.

Too bad. That's your problem unless you can show that the explanation is wrong.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 05, 2017, 02:32:28 PM

The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.

You speak nonsense .

The image provided shows the light to be evenly distributed around the Sun .

The image shows that the light is not scattered because it shows the same pattern and density all around the Eclipsed Sun .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If it were evenly distributed, it would be a perfect circle.

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

[Emphasis added]

Which is exactly what's happening. There's little light scattered behind the obstruction, there's little light scattered beyond the limb of the sun. What are the values of the blacks, purples and blues in the image compared with the values of the oranges and yellows? Do you have a profile of the light levels recorded on the original image, or at least a color scale of the false-color image so you can properly interpret their meaning? Or, most likely, are you only looking that false-color image and saying "wow! Look at the pretty colors!"

To draw meaningful conclusions, you need to know the relative brightness of the sun's corona (the faintly glowing plasma surrounding the sun) compared to the photosphere (the "surface" of the sun we see) to tell if it's significant. [Spoiler: it's not - that's why you need heavy filters to protect your eyes while any of the photosphere is visible, but not when it's completely occulted by the moon, and you can see and safely view the corona without a filter.]

Lacking specific information, let's make a SWAG at this:

The image being "analyzed" was probably taken through an ND5 solar filter using an exposure equivalent to something like ISO 100 for 1/500 sec at f/8^{[http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html]}.

An ND5 solar filter reduces light by a factor of 100,000 (10⁵)^{[http://starcircleacademy.com/2012/04/solar-filter/]}.

To properly expose the inner corona during totality you need an exposure equivalent to about 1/250 sec with the same ISO 100 and f/8^{[http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html]} - one f/stop (a factor of two) more exposure, without the filter. This means the brightest part of the corona is something like 1/200,000 as bright as the photosphere.

A 16-bits/channel sensor has a dynamic range of (2¹⁶ - 1):1 = 65,535:1. Since the corona is much dimmer than 1/65,535 of the photosphere, if the photosphere was right at saturation, the contribution of the corona to the background level would be zero! Few, if any, commonly available sensors have even 16-bit color depth - 12 or 14 are much more common.

Since it's can't be the sun's corona itself that's causing the low level of light recorded beyond the solar limb and in the occulted area in that image - it's just not bright enough to register at all - it must be something else. That something else is scattering between the moon (and sun) and the imager. It's the atmosphere and optics.

This is the value of actually working with data rather than untethered speculation. Such speculation, while it might seem reasonable if not critically examined, can lead to very wrong conclusions.

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

You just said it wasn't evenly distributed. Wanting you to make up your mind is probably too much to ask, but I'll try anyway. Can you please make up your mind?

It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

1. It's not evenly distributed, as you already acknowledge even though you keep saying otherwise.
2. The distribution of light is exactly what would be expected from scattering. Why would you expect it to be different? No, not impossible at all.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 05, 2017, 02:32:28 PM

Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?

Incorrect .

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .

Which is exactly what we see. We see a little light there. What are the values in the original image? What are the causes of non-zero values of light there, again?

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .

Nope. It works quite well.

Any luck on this yet? We're still waiting...

I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.

As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.

Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those?

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .

Totally incorrect conclusion!

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!

But, seriously, your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moon

<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>

Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.

You and your trashy YouTube makers are proof that there is a total lack of knowledge in even basic physics, optics and astronomy in so many people.
So, I suppose you are unwittingly performing a useful service.

PS I asked you some questions, please answer them!

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong. But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc. Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of: Saros cycles, The movement of your fictitious Rahu or The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation. If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake. But, this eclipse has again proven that The Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model.

PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

[1]  I don't use Photoshop; I use the cheapie CorelPaintShopPro or sometimes Corel PhotoPaint .

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 06, 2017, 10:34:00 AM

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .

Totally incorrect conclusion!

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!

FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong

Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped^[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. 

But, seriously, your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moon

there would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.

ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark Areas

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>

Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.

You and your trashy YouTube makers are proof that there is a total lack of knowledge in even basic physics, optics and astronomy in so many people.
So, I suppose you are unwittingly performing a useful service.

PS I asked you some questions, please answer them!

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong. But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc. Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of: Saros cycles, The movement of your fictitious Rahu or The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation. If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake. But, this eclipse has again proven that The Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model.

PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

[1]  I don't use Photoshop; I use the cheapie CorelPaintShopPro or sometimes Corel PhotoPaint .

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!

FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong

Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped^[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. 

You speak nonsense .

Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .

You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow 

You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .

This is impossible .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The new video :

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong.

You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum  the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .

Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:

• Saros cycles,
• The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
• The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.

If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.

This is my thread .

The thread is called :

Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe .

Which it has .

In more than one aspect .

It is NOT called Saros cycle explained and used to calculate the next eclipse .

It is NOT called movement of the Black Hole Sun explained .

PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

This site is called :

The Flat Earth Society .

It is not called :

The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .

You are the troll .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False .[/td][/tr][/table]

If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.

We all know that anyway, though.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 06, 2017, 10:34:00 AM

If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .

Totally incorrect conclusion!

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!

FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong

Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped^[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. 

But, seriously, your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moon

there would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.

ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark Areas

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>

Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.

You and your trashy YouTube makers are proof that there is a total lack of knowledge in even basic physics, optics and astronomy in so many people.
So, I suppose you are unwittingly performing a useful service.

PS I asked you some questions, please answer them!

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong. But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc. Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of: Saros cycles, The movement of your fictitious Rahu or The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation. If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake. But, this eclipse has again proven that The Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model.

PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

[1]  I don't use Photoshop; I use the cheapie CorelPaintShopPro or sometimes Corel PhotoPaint .

I do not find your explanation acceptable.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!

FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong

Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped^[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. 

You speak nonsense .

Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .

You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow 

You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .

This is impossible .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The new video :

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong.

You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum  the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:

• Saros cycles,
• The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
• The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.

If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.

This is my thread .

The thread is called :

Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe .

Which it has .

In more than one aspect .

It is NOT called Saros cycle explained and used to calculate the next eclipse .

It is NOT called movement of the Black Hole Sun explained .

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.

This site is called :

The Flat Earth Society .

It is not called :

The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .

You are the troll .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False .[/td][/tr][/table]

Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!

I do not find your explanation acceptable.
You speak nonsense .

Stop just spouting crap. If you don't find an explanation acceptable, point out exactly why, otherwise all rational people will just conclude that you don't find it acceptable because it shows you to be full of shit.

Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow 
You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .
This is impossible .

No. That isn't what we claim.
What we claim is that it doesn't matter if the sun really is that shape or if the sun merely appears that shape as part of it is obstructed by the moon (or some other object).
The scattering (that distribution of light) is caused by the atmosphere. So it depends upon the shape of the light it is receiving.

The moon doesn't simply case a 70 mile shadow.
The moon's shadow has 2 components (3 actually but one was not observed in this eclipse). The umbra, that is the region of totality, where the moon entirely blocks the sun's light. This will be smaller than the moon because the sun (the light source) is larger.
The penumbra is the region of a partial eclipse, and that is much larger than the moon.

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

No it isn't.
That is just your pathetic strawman of it.
In the HC model, the light is scattered by the atmosphere, not in space.

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

No, if your pathetic strawman is correct.
If the real model, the HC model, is correct, then that is exactly what we would expect.
The light from the sun travels towards Earth. The moon blocks out a chunk of it.
Then the atmosphere of Earth scatters it causing that much lighter region around the sun.

I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The new video :

You mean he baselessly spouts more and more crap?

I am sick of your pathetic videos which are just a waste of time.
Provide the argument yourself instead of just linking to crap.
If necessary, provide pictures as evidence.

You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum  the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .

You mean the partial eclipse started 1 hour earlier than totality, what you would expect given the HC model.

This is my thread .
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe .

And you are yet to back up that load of crap in any rational way.
The eclipse has shown serious problems with the FE model, but accurately matched predictions of the RE HC model.

Which it has .
In more than one aspect .

No it hasn't. It hasn't even come close. You spouted a bunch of pathetic crap and repeatedly got your ass handed to you. The best you could do in response was assert that you didn't find our explanation acceptable. You weren't able to point out anything wrong with the explanation, you just asserted that they were unacceptable. Rather than trying to address that, you just kept bringing up more and more crap.

So no, you haven't debunked the globe.

This site is called :
The Flat Earth Society .
It is not called :
The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .

So perhaps you should stop lying about models which can accurately predict observed reality (the HC model), and instead focus on the FE model and explain how eclipses work there?

Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!

If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
If you mean intelligent, rational or honest, then you are completely wrong.

But as a pile of crap matches what you typically provide it isn't surprising you find it great.

As he has continually failed to show how the eclipse is impossible on a HC model, or any problem with it, perhaps you can help him out?

Quote from: dutchy on September 07, 2017, 01:44:42 PM

Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!

If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
If you mean intelligent, rational or honest, then you are completely wrong.

But as a pile of crap matches what you typically provide it isn't surprising you find it great.

As he has continually failed to show how the eclipse is impossible on a HC model, or any problem with it, perhaps you can help him out?

I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .

I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.

I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .

I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?

You fool NO ONE .

You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.

Simply saying  " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.

Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?

Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?

Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth  ?

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2017, 04:04:51 PM

Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?

Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth  ?

No. Were those the ones taken during the eclipse you were promising?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 07, 2017, 04:17:00 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2017, 04:04:51 PM

Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?

Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth  ?

No. Were those the ones taken during the eclipse you were promising?

I do not need them .

I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .

This my thread I determine what I post.

I refuse to be manipulated by you Strange people .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .

Incorrect!  The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!

Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming,  wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 07, 2017, 04:21:03 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 07, 2017, 04:17:00 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 07, 2017, 04:04:51 PM

Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?

Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth  ?

No. Were those the ones taken during the eclipse you were promising?

I do not need them .

I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .

This my thread I determine what I post.

I refuse to be manipulated by you Strange people .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

You have shown nothing.
All your claims are unproven.
You are even able to explain your claims let alone show any proof for them.

You are like a little child that believes in Santa.

Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow 

Yes, why not? I cannot help it if you can't understand simply optics. The sun is much larger than the moon so the "total eclipse" part of thr shadow, the umbra" is smaller than the moon, as in:Here is a diagram with the moon-earth part to scale, though the sun is on the other side here:

You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .

Of course "the scattering of light is in the atmosphere"! Where else could it be?
But I did not say "it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light". What I said was:

Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:

• the sun was crescent shaped,
• part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
• even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moon

there would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.

ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark Areas

It would make no difference to what caused the shape.

This is impossible .
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

Rubbish! Here we go with more of your dishonest straw-man arguments!
You claim the "On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly" so-and-so happens. But you are wrong! It does not "allege" that at all.
The light is NOT scattered in the vacuum of space. Any scattering causing the glare we see is in the atmosphere.
You try to debunk the Heliocentric Globe, but over and over you have proven that you have no understanding of it!

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

Totally false as we are not seeing the eclipse "in space" we are within the atmosphere, well I am,

Light travels in straight lines till it meets another medium, here the atmosphere and in the atmosphere:

• it is bent a little by refraction (a small fraction of a degree) and
• scattered, causing the glare, which is largely, though not entirely removed by the solar filter.

I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The new video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat Earth Eclipse - What Really Blocked Out The Sun? GLOBEBUSTERS

I'm not interested in 36 minutes more of your trashy videos. Talk about unjustified meaningless Photoshopping!
Either you list the points you want to bring outand justify them or forget it!

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where  "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.

You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum  the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .

Not acceptable! I said You show exactly where the timing was wrong. And if I'm old man that needs spectacles and a hearing aid, you at 124 years old must be positive in you dotage.
Personal attacks are not acceptable and simply prove that you know that you have no case.
You argue your case with your words or admit that you are talking total rubbish - as we all know.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2017, 06:13:06 PM

Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:

• Saros cycles,
• The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
• The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.

If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.

This is my thread .
The thread is called : Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.Which it has. In more than one aspect .

Only in your dreams.  In other words, you think you have managed to "debunk the globe" only because you totally fail to properly understand it.
All you have proven is that your totally incorrect explanation of the Heliocentric Globe is totally incorrect. Big deal!
In other words, you and almost all other flat earthers resort to totally dishonest straw-man arguments.

It is NOT called Saros cycle explained and used to calculate the next eclipse .
It is NOT called movement of the Black Hole Sun explained .

Since you have totally failed to debunk the correct explanation of the Heliocentric Globe, I was giving you a chance to explain the well-known observations with your own theories, what ever they might be.

Since you turn that down, I guess that you have no ideas of your own as to the solar eclipse.

This site is called :
The Flat Earth Society .
It is not called :
The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .

I'm afraid you are showing your total ignorance and bias again.
NASA had nothing to do with with the adoption of the Heliocentric Globe as the correct explanation of the solar system.
That dates back some 300 or 400 years and the adoption of the Globe as the correct shape of the earth dates back some 2300 to 2500 years.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 07, 2017, 04:26:29 PM

I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .

Incorrect!  The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:

If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!

Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming,  wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!

You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.
Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.

Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999  .... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 07, 2017, 05:06:10 PM

The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:

If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!

Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming,  wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!

You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.

No need for "an extensive course in photoshop" as it never entered the mix.
Just what would you expect a sphere of grey dusty rock should look like when uniformly illuminated by the sun directly behind camera?
So, tough cheese, if you can't accept reality, that's your problem.

Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.

So sorry, but I don't even use Photoshop and I have very limited skills in that direction, but it looks like I'm doing something right!

Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999  .... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.

No, I didn't "update" those "cartoons before I  posted them over here."

Don't you think that NASA would have far better "photoshopping facilities" than you (or anyone else) could dream of affording.

You really think that you are so smart to claim that it could be made to "look better".
It probably could be made to look better, but NASA (ROSCSMOS, ESA and JMA) are not concerned with making it look better, but representing reality.

You're so naive to expect that if NASA, ROSCSMOS, ESA and JMA wanted to fake something that they couldn't do in a way that even you might think perfect.

I think your objections about alll these imperfections is really very solid evidence that those photos are quite genuine.
In other words "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

But, look NO NASA ! There are images from Europe's ESA, Russian ROSCOSMOS and Japan's JMA
Keep it up, you objections are getting hilarious.