The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[Grumpy Owl]

28 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

we can see stars through the moon

 

50 times the sun has been in the sky during a lunar eclipse

 

 

 

 

 

Who's "we"?

 

I've never seen any stars 'through the moon', in fact the only star visible during most of the daytime is the sun.

 

If you can 'see through the moon' then surely it is not 'self-illuminated' as it would be fully visible at all times?

[zArk]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Who's "we"?

 

I've never seen any stars 'through the moon', in fact the only star visible during most of the daytime is the sun.

 

If you can 'see through the moon' then surely it is not 'self-illuminated' as it would be fully visible at all times?

 

the royal we

 

Sir James South Royal Observatory

On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon’s dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon’s edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon’s dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . .

p. 339

[paragraph continues] I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . . The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery.” 1

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Occultation of the Pleiades, 1859, December 8, observed at the Royal Observatory, Greenwichhttps://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/20/2/52/1252764?login=false

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.”

 

+_++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

https://odysee.com/@dcforce:d/StarsThroughMoon:e

 

 

theres plenty of video recordings at different times showing this to be fact

 

well, i guess the word self-illuminating can be a misnomer, maybe a translucent self-lit 2d image

[peter]

3 hours ago, zArk said:

we can see stars through the moon

 

50 times the sun has been in the sky during a lunar eclipse

Don't tell me you kept your x- ray specks from all those years ago,they would probably be worth money now

 

So when actually were those times and where

Edited October 30, 2022 by peter

[peter]

1 hour ago, zArk said:

On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully.

1 If it wasn't illuminated how did they see the moon in a pitch black sky

2 Why did the royal we only see one star why not a host of them if the light was switched off for the moon (maybe a translucent self-lit 2d image ) and most likely not by my reckoning

3 If the moon is self illuminated who turned the light off and on then

4 Are you sure that what they were looking at was a star ,there have been many accounts of lights and illuminated areas on the moon both recent and around the time of your royal we (see New Lands, The Complete Works of Charles Fort). They are known as"lunar transient phenomena

5 I would also hazard a guess that the optical clarity in the scopes used in the days of the royal we wouldn't be as precise as it is today

6 I wonder how many of the royal we were Freemasons ,they're all lairs apparently

 

 

For centuries people have noticed odd flashes and other inexplicable lights on the surface of the moon. Possible explanations range from meteors to moonquakes to UFOs, but they have yet to be proven. A new telescope in Spain could provide more data and perhaps an answer to the mystery. 

So-called "lunar transient phenomena" can refer to flashes of light on the moon that are either fleeting or longer-lasting. Some areas of the lunar surface have also been seen to darken randomly. 

Since at least as far back as 1787, people have documented these enigmatic lights. On April 19 of that year, astronomer William Herschel reported seeing three reddish glowing areas on the moon that he interpreted to be erupting lunar volcanoes. Apollo astronauts, including Apollo 11's Michael Collins, also reported seeing unusually bright areas while orbiting our natural satellite.

"There is an area that is considerably more illuminated than the surrounding area," Collins told NASA mission control the day before the moon landing in 1969. "It just has — seems to have a slight amount of fluorescence to it. A crater can be seen, and the area around the crater is quite bright."  

Edited October 30, 2022 by peter

[peter]

3 hours ago, zArk said:

On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.”

Think about what the statement above tells you zark with regards to  lunar transient phenomena

[webtrekker]

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

we can see stars through the moon

 

50 times the sun has been in the sky during a lunar eclipse

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

 

 

 

[alexa]

17 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Here's a link to the first post in this thread so that we can all go round the circle again!

 

A bit like ships do on our flat earth...

[zArk]

6 hours ago, peter said:

Think about what the statement above tells you zark with regards to  lunar transient phenomena

 

 

well played, incredible

 

 

 

[peter]

7 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

 

well played, incredible

 

 

 

Its not incredible,just logical

[zArk]

10 minutes ago, peter said:

Its not incredible,just logical

 

people have video recorded the star moving across the moon

 

 

[peter]

19 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

people have video recorded the star moving across the moon

 

 

are you sure it was a star, which people  and when, as I asked before with the 50 eclipses when and where

also if it is "the star" as you say ,this statement would indicate you are talking about a specific star, so which one was recorded

Edited October 31, 2022 by peter

[zArk]

29 minutes ago, peter said:

are you sure it was a star, which people  and when, as I asked before with the 50 eclipses when and where

also if it is "the star" as you say ,this statement would indicate you are talking about a specific star, so which one was recorded

fair point on what stars

 

•  The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.”  
• McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”
•  Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.”  
• The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year

 

 

 

 

 

[peter]

1 hour ago, zArk said:

fair point on what stars

 

•  The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.”  
• McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”
•  Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.”  
• The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year

 

 

 

 

 

First off you got this from the planetruth web site (plane not a planet) ,I wouldn't expect any bias there

Maybe you should think about the statements from the observatories, they all have one thing in common and the answer to the riddle  is one of the points I made with your equilux fiasco, I think you should be able to work it out from there 

Edited October 31, 2022 by peter

[zArk]

2 hours ago, peter said:

First off you got this from the planetruth web site (plane not a planet) ,I wouldn't expect any bias there

Maybe you should think about the statements from the observatories, they all have one thing in common and the answer to the riddle  is one of the points I made with your equilux fiasco, I think you should be able to work it out from there 

look Peter, rather than dilly dally around an issue why dont you just say what you think?

State your opinion, provide evidence or a reference if you must, but this "i know something you dont know" is no good for conversation

[webtrekker]

2 hours ago, zArk said:

but this "i know something you dont know" is no good for conversation

 

Exactly, so how about providing the times and dates for your statement '50 times the sun has been in the sky during a lunar eclipse?'

 

Both Peter and I (and maybe others) would like to see this data so that we can draw our own conclusions.

 

We answer posts with mostly verifiable science, whereas nearly all of yours and Alexa's posts bend science to make it appear your views are correct, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. Your view of the Universe is akin to sitting in a Planetarium, eating popcorn, and enjoying the show.

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by webtrekker

[alexa]

.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by alexa

[zArk]

1 hour ago, webtrekker said:

Exactly, so how about providing the times and dates for your statement '50 times the sun has been in the sky during a lunar eclipse?'

i just provided 7 and you will find its a quote from a book called the terrestrial plane

 

page 59

Now, according to the “ globular theory,” a lunar eclipse occurs 
when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line ; but it is on record 
that since about the 15th century over 50 eclipses have occurred 
while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.

 

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0399--0300.html

 

1 hour ago, webtrekker said:

We answer posts with mostly verifiable science, whereas nearly all of yours and Alexa's posts bend science to make it appear your views are correct, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. Your view of the Universe is akin to sitting in a Planetarium, eating popcorn, and enjoying the show.

blah blah blah

 

lets look again at Sir Airys cock up and Sagnacs cancellation of Relativity

 

or

 

explain the different dates for Equilux between Stanley, Mary Harbour and Manaus .... doesnt work with the Globe Model

 

or

 

show me the measured gravity between two objects

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by zArk

[peter]

6 hours ago, zArk said:

ook Peter, rather than dilly dally around an issue why dont you just say what you think?

State your opinion, provide evidence or a reference if you must, but this "i know something you dont know" is no good for conversation

Just have a little think ,for christ sake zark it's not that hard,I tell you whats not good for conversation repeating the same crap over and over again.

When I do go to the trouble of explaining things to you it is usually just ignored so why should I waste my time,quite a few pages back you said you could be forthright with your interactions,unfortunately you have never demonstrated that fact in my opinion

Anyway  the answer you seek is f...ing simple and I told you where you could find it, try thinking in 3D

 

[webtrekker]

Tell me this zark(seeing as you are swerving everything else) -

 

If the stars are just projections onto your 'firmament,' why do they rotate? I mean, why would the creator of your flat world even bother to make the stars rotate just to simulate a globe Earth? There's just no logic in it.

 

 

 

[zArk]

10 hours ago, peter said:

Just have a little think ,for christ sake zark it's not that hard,I tell you whats not good for conversation repeating the same crap over and over again.

When I do go to the trouble of explaining things to you it is usually just ignored so why should I waste my time,quite a few pages back you said you could be forthright with your interactions,unfortunately you have never demonstrated that fact in my opinion

Anyway  the answer you seek is f...ing simple and I told you where you could find it, try thinking in 3D

 

 

 

 

cherry on top, pretty please

[peter]

20 hours ago, peter said:

First off you got this from the planetruth web site (plane not a planet) ,I wouldn't expect any bias there

Maybe you should think about the statements from the observatories, they all have one thing in common and the answer to the riddle  is one of the points I made with your equilux fiasco, I think you should be able to work it out from there

After thinking about this a bit more  the statements from the observatories have two things on common not one ,which helps considerably.

As I said zark you will find the simple answer where I told you to look

[zArk]

5 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Tell me this zark(seeing as you are swerving everything else) -

 

If the stars are just projections onto your 'firmament,' why do they rotate? I mean, why would the creator of your flat world even bother to make the stars rotate just to simulate a globe Earth? There's just no logic in it.

 

 

just tell me why you ignore Airys failure and Sagnacs experiment?

 

why do you continue without measurement of a curve?

 

 

[peter]

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

cherry on top, pretty please

the problem is you really don't want to know the answer  when I go to the trouble of explaining things to you it is generally ignored  .You said you  simply  regurgitate information ,maybe you should think about that information  first ,it is obvious that you scan the flatearth web sites for your next little tit bit and sojourn into controversy,  you strike me as someone who will parrot anything without thinking provided you perceive it to further your personal cause  

[alexa]

6 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

If the stars are just projections onto your 'firmament,' why do they rotate? I mean, why would the creator of your flat world even bother to make the stars rotate just to simulate a globe Earth? There's just no logic in it.

 

The whole firmament rotates, the only star that doesn't move much is Polaris. Again if we want know more about this we have to look to the North Pole, the center of earth. Again -See Mercator's maps.

 

 

 

[peter]

1 hour ago, alexa said:

Again -See Mercator's maps.

Yeh again and again and again and again''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' and again etc band practice I see

Just lacking in evidence somewhat  but that's never stopped you