- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: And many things like this that supposedly puts the globe earth to bed, is actually worse for the Flat Earth. Eclipses being one of them.
Please tell us why eclipses are “worse for the Flat Earth”… especially in light of the impossibility of a selenelion eclipse in the globe model.
Because the Solar System visualises eclipses and the mathematical data. The Flat Earth produces eclipses how? And the curved shadow on the moon, what is that? Refraction of the disk 90 degrees?
impossibility of a selenelion eclipse in the globe model.
Not impossible at all. We had one of these back in July. The following page has a little video about it so you can visualize what is going on. It seems you do not believe in refraction at all.
So we have to prove the Flat Earth without photos, videos, or personal testimonies from astronaut. Now I can’t use refraction?
T8: The Flat Earth produces eclipses how? And the curved shadow on the moon, what is that?
Solid questions. Let me begin my answer by asking you how you know the darkened part of the moon during a so-called eclipse is a “shadow” of something else at all, let alone that the “shadow” is caused by the earth. Some ancient cultures believed in a dark object orbiting the flat earth and sometimes blocking the light from the sun and moon. They called it the Black Sun, and Nibiru. I cannot personally verify that such a dark object (that we cannot see) is out there, so I can make no substantiated statement about the authenticity of those claims. But neither can you and I scientifically falsify those claims, right? NASA is always putting out stories about unknown asteroids and even planets in our own solar system. Here’s one about a football field sized asteroid that barely missed the earth…
NASA: Previously Unknown Asteroid had a Near Miss with Earth today
And here’s one about an unknown 9th planet of the solar system…
https://www.space.com/38431-new-evidence-planet-nine-existence.html
What is the Hubble doing up there? We’re supposedly seeing galaxies billions of light years away, but can’t even see a planet that is “10 times more massive than Earth” in our own solar system? After all, we’ve sent spacecraft all the way to tiny Pluto and beyond, right? Pluto is 6 times smaller than earth, and this unknown planet is supposed to be 10 times larger. How can we know about Pluto and even see it from earth, but know nothing about this planet that is 16 times larger than Pluto in the same basic area of the solar system?
My point is that even with your heliocentric belief, there are tons of things that NASA doesn’t know about our solar system. So how can we be sure that their idea of lunar eclipses being caused by the earth’s shadow is correct? Well, because this is on case where we can verify their story from earth. We all CAN personally verify whether the heliocentric story of the earth being the body that blocks light from the moon aligns with our own observations, right? And that is easiest to do during the impossible selenelion eclipses.
T8: Not impossible at all. We had one of these back in July. The following page has a little video about it so you can visualize what is going on. It seems you do not believe in refraction at all.
I read the article and watched the video. Do you really believe you understand more about selenelions after reading and watching it? 😀 Oh, and by the way, I wonder how long you will keep calling me a refraction denier when I’ve repeatedly stated that refraction is a very real thing. It’s been many months now that you keep making that claim, despite me repeatedly talking about the effects of refraction. Time for you to learn a new song, T8.
Anyway, let’s get on with this selenelion thing. This is what we’re told happens to make a lunar eclipse…
I just want to make sure you know that the sun, moon, and earth have to be in a straight line according to your model. Are we agreed on that part?
So eclipses are caused by objects unknown or the moon creating the effect on its own and that is a good enough explanation to debunk the idea that the Solar System model can explain it all perfectly and visually. That sounds like scientism to me Mike. I would find it hard to ignore the fact that the SS model works like clockwork and visually demonstrates the Math. One hell of a coincidence right.
NASA Forensic Photo Investigation SOLVED!
Blame the fact that they used a low res JPEG and avoided the high res version.
See Mike. If we are patient, each FE argument will be debunked. The truth works exactly like that. It just takes time. FEers seem to think that no immediate answer means people are stumped because the Earth is actually flat. No, it just means that it takes time to find the explanation. And think about all the debunking so far. That in itself is a good case for the Solar System model because when something is true, many signs point toward it and when something is not true, it’s supposed evidence will eventually crumble under the weight of scrutiny.
when I’ve repeatedly stated that refraction is a very real thing. It’s been many months now that you keep making that claim, despite me repeatedly talking about the effects of refraction. Time for you to learn a new song, T8.
Fantastic. So you understand that Ruapehu can be explained by Taupo Plateau and refraction alone. Good to see the point being acknowledged.
T8: So eclipses are caused by objects unknown or the moon creating the effect on its own and that is a good enough explanation to debunk the idea that the Solar System model can explain it all perfectly and visually. That sounds like scientism to me Mike. I would find it hard to ignore the fact that the SS model works like clockwork and visually demonstrates the Math. One hell of a coincidence right.
That would be a valid argument… IF the solar system model could explain it all perfectly and visually. Let’s find out if it can, okay? I put some artwork in my last post, and asked you a very simple question. Please be so kind as to answer that question DIRECTLY and SUCCINCTLY so we can move on from there.
T8: See Mike. If we are patient, each FE argument will be debunked…
Yes, the old “jpeg compression” argument again. It might interest you to know that when Rob Skiba first increased the levels on that earth (and other NASA official images), he did it during a LIVE stream. You can still find it online, and watch his computer AS he goes to the official NASA site, downloads the official NASA hi-def version of that photo, pastes it into his Photoshop program, and increases the levels to show the box around the earth. I have heard (but cannot verify) that since Skiba’s live stream, NASA has gone in and “cleaned up” quite a few of those photos, and so we cannot do the same thing and get the same effect today. Kind of like the nullschool.com weather pattern site removed the AE map as one of the choices after flat earthers were convincing thousands of people just by showing the patterns on the globe model side by side with the same patterns on the flat earth AE map. It was a compelling argument, because any child could see the perfect patterns on the AE map while the same weather systems were jumbled and hodge podge on the other maps – especially the globe.
Anyway, here’s a short 4 minute video that shows someone doing the exact same thing with a different NASA photo…
But only watch it if you are interested in truth. From what I’ve seen on this thread, you are not. If you were, I’d see you posting some PRO flat earth videos and asking your own questions about things. Instead, it’s clear that you only search “flat earth DEBUNKED” videos, and post them without your own comments – as if blindly posting a video fixes everything for you. Try harder.
Mike: …when I’ve repeatedly stated that refraction is a very real thing. It’s been many months now that you keep making that claim, despite me repeatedly talking about the effects of refraction. Time for you to learn a new song, T8.
T8: Fantastic. So you understand that Ruapehu can be explained by Taupo Plateau and refraction alone. Good to see the point being acknowledged.
That is the epitome of a non sequitur. Yes refraction exists. No, it can’t cause mountains and cities to project perfect images of themselves up over hundreds or thousands of feet of curve and land perfectly on the horizon so it appears exactly as if we were seeing the real mountain or city on a flat earth.
T8, what scientific reason do you have to believe that refraction could do such a thing? It’s a serious question and deserves a serious and straightforward answer. Because as far as I can tell, your entire reason for insisting the mountain has refracted up over a curve is that you know we couldn’t see the bottom half on a ball earth. In other words, your reasoning goes like this:
- The earth is most definitely a ball.
- There’s no way we could see the bottom half of Ruapehu on the ball earth from that distance.
- The bottom half of Ruapehu IS in my photograph.
- Therefore, the bottom half MUST BE projecting itself up over the curve.
Does that sound about right? Because if not, I’d sure love to know your empirical, observation-based reason for making such a claim.
I was also wondering about the top half of Ruapehu that we would be able to see on a ball earth. Shouldn’t that part of the mountain be sitting on the ground, with the refracted lower half sitting right on top of it – like a double exposure photograph? See what I mean? If you say the bottom part that is behind the curve is refracting up over the curve and landing on the horizon, why would the top half not still BE on the horizon where it should be? Why would the visible part refract 3000 feet up into the air and rest perfectly on the refraction of the lower, hidden half?
Another serious question that deserves a serious and honest answer.
The solution for me was to investigate further, to see if there were any other similarly absurd explanations we’d been given for observations that don’t align with the theory. I found dozens of them.
But they are being debunked one at a time. And you ignore all experiments that lead to the realisation of globe earth. And that doesn’t even include sending up craft to photograph and video what the earth really looks like.
Mike, I often work with JPGs in Photoshop as I’m a keen photographer who owns a photo based website where I post up JPG files with many having been passed through Photoshop first
Sometimes part of the photo is darker than it was when seen with the naked eye, so I select that area and maybe increase brightness, contrast, and/or saturation.
As for NASA, they are open about using Photoshop too, but that doesn’t make them a liar. Often the photo itself is lying and Photoshop can correct this or enhance features that are already there.
In my view, this NASA conspiracy is debunked and irrelevant. Another conspiracy theory that failed under the weight of scrutiny. The Earth is in the photo and the effect you point out was either a known effect with low res images or shows that someone selected the area and perhaps upped the saturation a bit.
I care not which one it was. This FE point is done for me.
Instead, it’s clear that you only search “flat earth DEBUNKED” videos, and post them without your own comments – as if blindly posting a video fixes everything for you. Try harder.
I do watch Flat Earth videos as I do watch Hollow Earth videos and even Ancient Aliens. I find them interesting as they ask good questions. Rarely do I post about them because I do not believe them to be true.
I keep an open mind and can change my mind when facts are presented. None of these theories have convinced me just as Evolution and no creator science videos have not convinced me. I have even watched Richard Dawkins videos and Hillary Clinton videos despite being against their ideas.
I believe that truth requires a search that often takes place outside our own comfort zones. In doing this, you sometimes stumble across a jewel that you would not have found otherwise.
T8: And that doesn’t even include sending up craft to photograph and video what the earth really looks like.
Do you mean like the balloons that have gone to over 100,000 to 120,000 feet without seeing any curve?
T8: As for NASA, they are open about using Photoshop too, but that doesn’t make them a liar.
Do you mean like the time they said they were close to the moon but were in a low earth orbit? If you have trouble recalling that, it is on video.
T8: But they are being debunked one at a time.
You have yet to debunk even one of them.
T8: And you ignore all experiments that lead to the realisation of globe earth.
I wasn’t aware such a thing existed. Please enlighten me.
T8: And that doesn’t even include sending up craft to photograph and video what the earth really looks like.
D4T already pointed out that the only craft we can verify are high altitude planes and balloons. Have you ever seen a rocket actually go into space – as opposed to doing a parabolic curve right back down to earth? How would you personally verify that anyone has ever put any craft into “outer space”?
I’m working on a couple of videos that will help you sort out a few things.
T8: Mike, I often work with JPGs in Photoshop… This FE point is done for me.
About the time you were making this post, I was watching this live stream…
I’m sure you won’t spend an hour and ten minutes learning some truth, so I’m going to snip out some relevant parts and package it into a 1 or 2 minute video for you. It was perfect timing, since we are right now talking about this very thing. With your working knowledge of Photoshop, you’ll have no problem identifying with the points this guy is making. And you can even do the same things yourself. I’ll try to have it ready by this weekend if not sooner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
