Dark Moon

  • 183 Replies
  • 8221 Views
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2020, 05:12:37 AM »
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.
A lot of things cause oxidation to occur. Almost none of those things glow when it happens.

Oxidation is also very far from proof that enzymes exist on the moon.
Just because things happen in the ocean, does not mean they happen on the moon, I dont even know how you are drawing the parallels.
Are there whales on the moon too?

The rest of the stuff you say is just things you find spooky and fantastical without any influence on the actual topic

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2020, 05:19:04 AM »
So Jackblack has admitted to being a devil worshipper. A sad revelation. I will pray for you.
No, why would I worship a fictional character?
I'm just not foolish enough to think that God is the good one in the Bible.

Now again, care to address the problems with your bioluminescence idea?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2020, 05:31:41 AM »
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.
A lot of things cause oxidation to occur. Almost none of those things glow when it happens.

Oxidation is also very far from proof that enzymes exist on the moon.
Just because things happen in the ocean, does not mean they happen on the moon, I dont even know how you are drawing the parallels.
Are there whales on the moon too?

The rest of the stuff you say is just things you find spooky and fantastical without any influence on the actual topic
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.

Yes I agree with you. Oxidation has many wonderful examples. In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow. I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2020, 05:54:22 AM »
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.
I would love to see the published papers you may have on this!

Quote
Yes I agree with you. Oxidation has many wonderful examples. In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow.
Bio-Luminescence suggests that there is life (Bio) on the moon.
Citation please.
What is your evidence of this?
Why are there not whales on the moon too?
Why cant it just be a giant LED screen controlled by someones iPad?
Back up your claims.
Quote
I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)
We have clearly never met

*

sokarul

  • 18145
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2020, 06:40:37 AM »
Shadows on the moon deflate the bioluminescent idea.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2020, 07:05:33 AM »
It is true that some animals react to moonlight. And it is true that some animals are bioluminescent. But the water on the moon is almost entirely under the surface. And light does not penetrate rock. So for us to see biologically-created light on the moon it would have to be on the surface.

And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!

But you cannot argue with people who will just deny all facts because there's no basis for the discussion. That's why you cannot argue with flat-Earthers or Republicans: They just deny the facts and call everybody liars.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2020, 10:31:00 AM »
And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!
That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon. But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2020, 12:10:36 PM »
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.
You mean no connection at all?
There are evils of lucifer. Lucifer refers to 2 separate fictional characters.
Its literal meaning is light bringing. It was the name given to the morning star before the evil Christians tried to sully it by linking it to Satan which they pretend is evil while worshipping a far more evil being.

The only real connection is that scientists seem to like using Latin for lots of things, and lucifer or light bringing is Latin. And what would be a better Latin name for something bringing forth light?

Now how about you cut the religious BS and instead deal with the massive failings of your wild speculation?

You claim it mirrors the patterns of bioluminescent creatures on Earth. Again, what creatures on Earth have a bioluminescent cycle that lasts for approximately 28 days, and then every 6 months, instead of being fully bright, they will some times dim, in a complex pattern?

In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable
No, it isn't.

We know the mechanism on Earth, where there are the reactants for the chemical reaction. You have nothing more than wild speculation.
No bioluminescence is observable.
Instead we see the moon brightly illuminated, lit up by another object.
With bioluminescence we observe relatively sharp peaks in the emission spectra, based upon the enzyme and conditions.
For the moon, we see much closer to a black body radiation source.

This all points to the moon being illuminated by another bright object and it merely reflecting light.
Unlike your wild speculation, that actually wraps everything up in a nice little bow.

That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon.
You not liking the evidence/reality and wanting to reject it doesn't magically make the claim unjustifiable.
Do you know what is an unjustifiable claim? That the moon is lit up by bioluminescent organisms.

But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.
Remember, you are talking about creatures which allegedly produce water from their bioluminescence.
The Astronauts went to an illuminated section of the moon, one which would be producing light and thus water if your wild speculation was true.
They didn't find water there.
Instead they notice the moon being illuminated by the sun, even having shadows cast.
They even brought back samples of the "dirt" from the moon.

So how about you try justifying your own claim?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2020, 12:42:47 PM »
So Jackblack, by walking around a landscape I can rule out that microflora live there or not?

Sorry but that's essentially what you are saying by disagreeing with my point that "astronauts" cannot make that determination from their space walks.

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2020, 12:58:13 PM »
I have shown you the spectra of sunlight and moonlight in here:
I see more fairytales being written without a trace of evidence.

By the way I can find nothing on the spectra of your bioluminescent mussels but almost all bioluminescence is nearly monochrome as shown for the zooplankton in this paper.
Bioluminescence spectra of shallow and deep-sea gelatinous zooplankton: Ctenophores, medusae and siphonophores
But the spectrum of moonlight is very similar to that of sunlight, just a little redder.

I've yet to see bioluminecence with a spectrum like that.
Would you now show the spectra of the light from your bioluminescent mussels so that we may compare?

The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow. I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent mussels on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2020, 01:02:08 PM »
And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!
That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon. But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.

You claim it gives off enough light to be seen from the Earth, almost 239 thousand miles away. Certainly the astronauts would have seen it while they were there. As for your belief they were not, well, reality is that which does not go away just because you don't believe in it. But I know that you're joking, because nobody who actually knows how to type on a computer could possibly be so dense as to disbelieve in the moon landings.

And microbes cannot live without water, and there is no water on the surface of the moon. Again, we know that from the astronauts who were there and from many unmanned landers. There is no life on or anywhere near the surface of the moon. And almost certainly none below, though that's not relevant to the question of moonlight visible from the Earth.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2020, 01:13:26 PM »
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

sokarul

  • 18145
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2020, 01:28:11 PM »
Shadows on the moon.


See the flaw in your “logic”?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2020, 01:48:36 PM »
So Jackblack, by walking around a landscape I can rule out that microflora live there or not?
Sorry but that's essentially what you are saying
No, it is nothing like what I am saying.

I am saying what they have done can conclusively rule out the moon being illuminated by bioluminescent organisms which give off water.
What they observed was that the moon was dry and illuminated by the sun which cast shadows.

I understand that you can't honestly respond to that, but don't lie about what I am saying.

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
That sentence makes no sense. It directly contradicts itself.
Flat Earthers support wrong Earth nonsense, and outright reject evidence.

You are doing that right here, rejecting the evidence obtained by going to the moon and instead appealing to wild speculation supported by literally nothing.

Now again, care to deal with the massive flaws in your nonsense?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2020, 02:10:57 PM »
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?
Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent organisms on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?

<< changed "mussels" to "organisms" :o >>
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 09:25:29 PM by rabinoz »

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2020, 02:49:29 PM »
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?

But you didn't fly over Africa taking high-resolution pictures of every square meter to see if there were any trees for squirrels to live in or any nuts for squirrels to eat. You didn't take any soil samples to determine that there is no water or take measurements to determine that there's no air for them to breathe.

Remember, you're not just saying that there may be an isolated microbe here and there. You are saying that the entire visible surface of the moon is completely covered with microbes plentiful enough to illuminate the entire surface, including the places the astronauts visited.

If I had said that every square inch of the entire surface of Africa was coated in squirrels, your visit would have been sufficient to debunk my squirrel theory. You are claiming the entire surface of the moon is covered in bioluminescent microbes. The astronauts merely needed so show there is a small area without them to debunk your theory.

But let me congratulate you on drawing me in to debunk a theory you yourself do not believe. Like Wise, you are writing utter drivel to see how many people will come in to point out how idiotic that drivel is, and I've fallen for it also.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2020, 03:45:53 PM »
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!

« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 03:50:55 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Stash

  • 6035
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2020, 03:59:32 PM »
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!

Interesting info about bioluminescent organisms in the Caribbean, but what does any of this have to do with the predictable phases of the moon?

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2020, 05:03:29 PM »
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!



The difference is that on the moon there are none of the elements needed for life. Ergo, no life. All your speculations about divergence and wavelengths and clumping or non-clumping are moot in an environment where there is no life and can be no life. Your information about mussels is actually fascinating. Thanks for posting that. But it's irrelevant on the moon where no life can exist.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2020, 09:32:28 PM »
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 
OK. Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent organisms on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?

A "a sea faring voyage" on Earth would be quite irrelevant.
I already know that there are plenty of bioluminescent organisms: some fly, some set traps for flying things and many live in the ocean.

That bears no relation to what might be found on the moon.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2020, 10:19:15 PM »
Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
I have asked before, but you seemed to have ignored that post.
Can you please provide me with a research paper that the moon produces harmful rays

And then can you provide me with some of this evidence that the moon whales and moon unicorns have not eaten all of the moonshrimp up.
I mean, there are no moon oceans, as we would see it, so the moon shrimp would have no place to live.
Easy pickings for the moon unicorns to just eat them all up.
After that you have to prove to me how the moon lions dont eat all the moon unicorns.

But really, all I want is any shred of evidence for what you are saying.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2020, 12:08:56 AM »
As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth.
That has already been explained, we aren't trying to just go out in ignorance trying to see if there is any life on the moon.

You are claiming that there are bioluminescent organism which cycle their illumination to produce their phases of the moon, and which produce water in the process.
That means all they need to do is go to a region which is illuminated and inspect it.
If they don't find any water, your claims are wrong.
If they find the moon illuminated by the sun with shadows cast onto it, your claims are wrong.

If your claims are correct they should fine the moon brightly illuminated with shadows being cast upwards from the surface, and find water on the surface.

Now again, can you actually address the issues raised.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2020, 12:59:52 AM »
But you cannot argue with people who will just deny all facts because there's no basis for the discussion. That's why you cannot argue with flat-Earthers or Republicans: They just deny the facts and call everybody liars.

Well said.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40318
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2020, 07:04:06 AM »
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.
Too bad none of that water is in liquid form.

We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
The same way scientists think that earth got its water: comets.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2020, 11:45:47 AM »
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence. I find it hard to believe anyone should take the opposing stance as this has been known since antiquity. Further, Ichi has provided us with the results of several studies on bioluminescence that confirm our already well supported knowledge on the subject.

I'd like to understand exactly what is so unbelievable here. It is clear the light from the moon is of a distinctly different nature than those given off by the greater luminary Sol. It is even more clear that it poses risk to us.

You are a fool to think otherwise, and you put your mind and reason at risk by ignoring the obvious signs of danger.

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2020, 11:53:39 AM »
The Society officially wipes its hands of responsibility for any globularist foolish enough to wander in the light of the lesser luminary.

One easy to note evidence of our luna friends is the fact moon light is polarized - much like many other forms of bioluminescence. It is as obvious as day is day and night is night that this polarized light poses a danger to many animal, insect, and beast - and yes to man itself.

Recall the warnings from the Giants upon whom you have propped up your false earth model. It is expected of all good forum goers to be aware of classical works such as On the Face on the Orb of the Moon so that they do not spread disinformation and fake news that can be of danger to our members. After all, Salus populi suprema lex esto!
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2020, 11:57:51 AM »
People have avoided moonlight for centuries. these people must were  knowing something. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, moonlight is harmful. Those who claim to always behave scientifically throw aside scientific thinking when it comes to moonlight, and deny the harm of moonlight even though they don't have any data.

They deny the harmless of the moonlight without any evidence that accepted from years ; but we are denying their globalist theory with some evidences then they blaim us to not act scientific. What a hypocrisy. They are who acting unscientific and hypocritical clearly.


this workplace is on strike

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2020, 12:34:53 PM »
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence.
Since when?
I have seen no evidence of that at all.

I'd like to understand exactly what is so unbelievable here.
Then read what has been said.
What bioluminescent creatures have the patterns of light observed, which are far more consistent with an object being illuminated by the sun.
What bioluminescent creatures produce the spectrum of light observed from the moon, which is far more consistent with a black body?

It is clear the light from the moon is of a distinctly different nature than those given off by the greater luminary Sol. It is even more clear that it poses risk to us.
No, it isn't clear at all.
If you think it is, how about providing some evidence showing it is?

People have avoided moonlight for centuries. these people must were  knowing something. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, moonlight is harmful. Those who claim to always behave scientifically throw aside scientific thinking when it comes to moonlight, and deny the harm of moonlight even though they don't have any data.
That isn't how science works.
Those who claim moonlight is harmful with no evidence are the ones throwing aside scientific thinking.
Without that evidence there is no basis for the claim that moonlight is harmful.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2020, 12:40:30 PM »
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence.

"It is well established" is about the weakest argument :o I could think of.
Would care to provide evidence showing that "the moon is teaming with life ;D", that "this life poses a risk to man >:D" and that this life has any "defensive mechanism of bioluminescence 8)"?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2020, 01:07:43 PM »
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon; lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates. Human doctor visits increase during the full moon as do pet vet visits. Corals go into a mating frenzing due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon. Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins. Even man sleeps worse in the full moon. Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight. Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary. Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon. As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments. Parasites are also more active during the full moon, taking advantage of their weakened hosts.


Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.


More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham and others on both sides of the aisle, such as Plutarch's treatise, that fish rot when left out in moonlight. How can you even hope to topple the truth of the Flat Earth if you are not even familiar with the greatest work of scientific literature known to man?


Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it. Every culture on earth has known it. Animals know it. Primates know it. Lions know it. Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatric professionals all will attest to the moons dangerous affects. And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.


As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."


Quantum Ab Hoc