Originally posted by sonhouseNo contradictions.
There are no contradictions with the eclipse 'animations', If you had actually read the article you would have seen the limitations of the spacecraft electronics which could not take images fast enough, it is not a video camera, it is a still camera and takes some time to go from one image to the next.
Of course that will not be enough for you since you ...[text shortened]... ere= ZERO seeing beyond the horizon.
Of course that is never going to be good enough for you.
Really.
Did you VIEW the animation?
Are you sighted?
In that animation, the earth would totally dominate the moon's sky--- it would unquestionably completely fill it up.
But that's not all that is wrong with the fraudulent animation.
Throughout the duration of the eclipse, observe the speed of the earth's rotation: doesn't match the stated speed.
Observe the cloud formations and how they register nearly no movement whatsoever.
Observe the small patch which passes through the upper left of the globe: looks like two overlayed squares.
In a word: fake.
Two words: completely fake.
But no matter.
Compare the proportions here with any other shot of the earth from the moon: doesn't even come close to agreeing.
Fake.
Liars.
Still haven't seen your response on "cognitive dissonance" or "waffling" yet.
Were you getting around to that?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this only a monologue? I think I answered your questions but you are refusing to answer any of mine. For instance, here is one for you given to my buddy Scott, a guy I work with, he has an MSEE in engineering, he asks this question:
No contradictions.
Really.
Did you VIEW the animation?
Are you sighted?
In that animation, the earth would totally dominate the moon's sky--- it would unquestionably completely fill it up.
But that's not all that is wrong with the fraudulent animation.
Throughout the duration of the eclipse, observe the speed of the earth's rotation: doesn't matc ...[text shortened]... en your response on "cognitive dissonance" or "waffling" yet.
Were you getting around to that?
If the sun is somewhere close to Earth, besides my issue with the moon at a quarter million miles away still getting warm,
He wants to know: Why is the sun always the same size if it is close to Earth?
If the sun was say 1000 miles up, it would look a lot smaller to someone at dusk vs someone else at noon but they are the same. Why would that be in your mythology?
Originally posted by sonhouseAnswer what I posted first.
Is this only a monologue? I think I answered your questions but you are refusing to answer any of mine. For instance, here is one for you given to my buddy Scott, a guy I work with, he has an MSEE in engineering, he asks this question:
If the sun is somewhere close to Earth, besides my issue with the moon at a quarter million miles away still getting war ...[text shortened]... eone at dusk vs someone else at noon but they are the same. Why would that be in your mythology?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn other words as far as you are concerned, it is a monologue where you ask questions, we answer and because you don't accept the answer, we have not answered the questions even though we did. You need to study a number of disciplines to understand our place in the universe like the sun really is 93 million miles away for starters.
Answer what I posted first.
I also answered the size bit showing you what Earth would look like, how big, at a quarter million miles but that you refuse to acknowledge much less actually understand.
If you can't understand simple crap like that, how do you think you will ever be able to understand slightly more complex issues?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI bet you weigh more in the middle than you do on the edge, right? Centripetal forces may knock you off completely🙂
Just got back from Freaky's disc world.
Man it's freaky.
There I was, officer, peering over the edge of the ice cliff when suddenly, wham, I'm slung out into space but I grabbed on to an overhanging bush growing out of the ice and I was able to pull myself back to good old Earth.....
-Removed-I honestly believe the world is not a sphere with the given dimensions.
That has been eliminated beyond a shadow of doubt.
I suspect it is, as stated, similar to a record on a player, although not rotating; I don't know this, just suspect it.
The things I know are based upon things which can be proven.
The things I suspect are based on the things known.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you claim some kind of flatness but are unable to come up with a depth. That would be because the brainwashing literature you are reading cannot come up with a number either. Ok, we can live with that. So it's not turning. Why is the night sky turning around us then? In that case you would have to be claiming the entire universe is turning around us, just like 3000 years ago. Is that the case?
I honestly believe the world is not a sphere with the given dimensions.
That has been eliminated beyond a shadow of doubt.
I suspect it is, as stated, similar to a record on a player, although not rotating; I don't know this, just suspect it.
The things I know are based upon things which can be proven.
The things I suspect are based on the things known.
Also, you have yet to find in your literature why the moon is hot as well as Earth since in your mythology, the sun has to be very close to Earth to get these effects we seem to notice, like sunlight followed by dark and so forth. So if the sun is 1000 miles away from Earth, luna would get about 1/60,000 th of the energy Earth gets. I already showed you the math for that but again, no response. I would then assume you cannot find the answer in the brainwashing literature you have to be reading.
As well as the fact Venus is much much hotter than Luna, like a thousand degrees hot.
You can't have it all the way like that, a sun close to Earth and simultaneously heating the hell out of Venus about 50 million miles from Earth and more.
So go search your literature for an answer that I know is not there. Then you can come back with, you answer MY questions first, which I did.
-Removed-You like to find little tidbits to support your position.
Here's one for you which was readily found with about ten-fifteen seconds of searching on YouTube:
Summary for the reader, since you'll likely ignore it.
Guy and his wife found a stretch of usually flat water just a smidgen over six miles across (6.23, to be more exact).
He's on one side of the bay with a zoom camera, his wife is leaning a 4' mirror on the other shore.
Water's somewhat choppy, with 2-3' waves.
Camera is set on a tripod 2.66' tall.
Distance is 6.23.
Loss is nearly 12', 11.93' for their positions.
The waves are obscuring about half of the mirror, but literally no other loss and certainly not 12'.
That's a little hard to explain, huh.