Re: Look up in the sky....

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:47 pm

This is why I try to resort to making my own observation and include the background research.

None of it makes sense when we take it all into consideration.

The govt lies, pharma lies, we have chemtrails everyday, wars, media in fact pretty much every agency responsible for the insane world we live in has contributed in some way. Why would the work of certain space agencies be trusted over our own minds, our own intelegance and our own observations, especially when the science they give us is so questionable and leaves all this confusion.

What really bothers me is we are left in places like this to discuss and bicker between ourselves about whats right and wrong, a belief and a fact, being unable to draw real conclusions or even address the real problem, they've done it all with no resistance what so ever, what a convenient design.

I'm going to stick to my own observations and experiments supplemented with research, I can't argue with myself Laughing

by Awoken2 Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:47 pm

This thread is now officially deeper than whale poo Razz

by max2000 Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:53 pm

Waffle wrote:This is why I try to resort to making my own observation and include the background research.

None of it makes sense when we take it all into consideration.

The govt lies, pharma lies, we have chemtrails everyday, wars, media in fact pretty much every agency responsible for the insane world we live in has contributed in some way. Why would the work of certain space agencies be trusted over our own minds, our own intelegance and our own observations, especially when the science they give us is so questionable and leaves all this confusion.

What really bothers me is we are left in places like this to discuss and bicker between ourselves about whats right and wrong, a belief and a fact, being unable to draw real conclusions or even address the real problem, they've done it all with no resistance what so ever, what a convenient design.

I'm going to stick to my own observations and experiments supplemented with research, I can't argue with myself

Just throw "Profit" into the list.

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:09 pm

by **Lopsum** Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:00 am

Awoken2 wrote:This thread is now officially deeper than whale poo

so will you be tinkering away for the next decade fathoming out if refraction is the answer or not or will you humbly accept "that which is too much of a pain in the arse not too accept and makes no difference what the answer is in day to day life"?

by Awoken2 Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:30 am

The second one Lopsum Shocked

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:44 am

Hi all

Refraction can not be depended on to explain the phenomenon under discussion.

Don't get me wrong, refraction is good science - with the correct resources any of us could replicate the experiments, that's what makes it good science.

However when we talk about light entering our realm from 'space' we find ourselves depending on the word of the known liars that are NASA.

There are no experiments we can perform to prove or disprove the NASA hypothesis. Believing in NASA takes us out of science and into religion (scientism).

For this reason we can't depend on refraction as the explanation.

Cheers!

by Little D Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:31 pm

Hey, refraction perfectly explains the OP question.

Like I typed in my first post, the shadow is in the right place.

It is not plausible to expect light to fully light up the shadow part of the moon as the suns light is being refracted by the atmosphere and is not penetrating right through the planet.

The refracted (which makes the sun appear in a place it is not) light is then directed towards the planet it is not the equivalent of a new sun.

If you take the first pic I posted and imagine the path of light of the actual sun and not the refracted sun.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:17 pm

Hi actinglikeabanker

i 'm not disputing the science alab, the science is good. What i'm saying is that because we know that NASA lie, lie, lie we don't know what is outside our atmosphere/dome, so we can't know how light operates or travels outside our system, or what happens when it reaches us, so we can only go by NASA's word. In other words we have to believe in NASA which takes us away from science (repeatable experiments) and into Scientism (faith in dogma).

Don't forget, there are different theories as to what light is. Theories, however appealing, suggest we don't know and are just guessing. Again if you put your faith in a theory without being willing to consider other theories than that is dogmatic faith aka religion.

In short we can test and prove refraction only within our realm. Anything outside our realm is conjecture which means one theory is as good as another as we are operating on assumption and that's not real science.

Cheers!

by **Lopsum** Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:44 pm

we do ok not knowing what light is for sure. Particle theory looks like it has too many holes in it to be of much use for much longer . Its a coaxial wave not a particle(with no mass)
You do not need to know what it is to be able to make and measure, it acts consistently.Science does run on assumptions, until things stop working then new answers are needed. Till it breaks dont fix it. Refraction gives us the answer, if your not satisfied with that its up to you .
How are you going to do any tests in space anyway? Nassa or no Nassa? Here lies the futility of your argument. You will have to trust someone at some point as it is beyond us to do it ourselves.
nassa fixation , flatearth rule book no 1 , nassa cannot be allowed to have any validity.
You do know why dont you? its not roket science Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:11 pm

Hi Lopsum

So you're OK with 'trusting' others for answers? That's not science. And NOBODY has done experiments in space. Again, Scientism.

You can't put the effect down to refraction and say that it's science when you are making assumptions about what lies beyond our enclosed system. We don't know what's beyond our enclosure, NASA is lying about what they know.

We know how refraction works in our realm. We only ASSUME how it (light) works before/if it enters our enclosure.

Light isn't a wave or particle - it is both. Light does not 'travel' through a medium - it 'affects' the medium. Light is 'induced' in a medium when a certain frequency hits it. The light frequency only touches one molecule in the medium and every molecule is affected simultaneously. But it needs a medium or the phenomenon of light is not visible.

i'm talking science. i don't mind if i'm wrong if someone can prove me wrong without using assumption/Scientism . Anyone think they can do that? Help me out here.....

Cheers!

by **Lopsum** Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:28 pm

Where is your evidence that refraction is not the reason that the moon doesnt look right? Does your evidence come from another source that you trust never to have lied ?
until you have this then there is no actual reason to suppose any differently.

by Guest Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:31 am

Hi Lopsum

i don't have any evidence but then i haven't offered an alternative theory. The point i'm making is that NEITHER of us have evidence that refraction can apply. OK, a short chronology :

1. Almost all people think earth is flat.

2.NASA shows the whole world photo's and film that shows earth to be globe floating in empty black space.

3. Almost all people think earth is globe.

4. Paradigm-shifting photo's and film shown to be faked.

5. A few people happen on the fakeness and start to ask questions, but:

All telemetry of missions - lost
All technical details (eg craft, lander, rover) - lost
All will to return to the moon - lost

6.It starts to gain momentum as a growing 'movement' and ..... here we are!

NASA lied. There's been a growing number of people who want to know why,, and what it is that they're hiding. They haven't told the truth about what's 'out there'. The psy-op is in taking the curious past that most pertinent question and into the distraction of arguing what shape it might be. The more variations the better.

So we don't know what's 'out there'. Everything is assumption and conjecture without the science. We don't even know if light exists outside of our enclosure, or what rules apply to it, so to apply the law of refraction from 'outside' (unknown) to 'inside' (known) is based on assumption.

Surely that's enough to suspect (if not suppose) differently?

Cheers!

by Little D Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:43 am

iamani wrote:Hi Lopsum

i don't have any evidence but then i haven't offered an alternative theory. The point i'm making is that NEITHER of us have evidence that refraction can apply. OK, a short chronology :

1. Almost all people think earth is flat.

2.NASA shows the whole world photo's and film that shows earth to be globe floating in empty black space.

3. Almost all people think earth is globe.

4. Paradigm-shifting photo's and film shown to be faked.

5. A few people happen on the fakeness and start to ask questions, but:

All telemetry of missions - lost
All technical details (eg craft, lander, rover) - lost
All will to return to the moon - lost

6.It starts to gain momentum as a growing 'movement' and ..... here we are!

NASA lied. There's been a growing number of people who want to know why,, and what it is that they're hiding. They haven't told the truth about what's 'out there'. The psy-op is in taking the curious past that most pertinent question and into the distraction of arguing what shape it might be. The more variations the better.

So we don't know what's 'out there'. Everything is assumption and conjecture without the science. We don't even know if light exists outside of our enclosure, or what rules apply to it, so to apply the law of refraction from 'outside' (unknown) to 'inside' (known) is based on assumption.

Surely that's enough to suspect (if not suppose) differently?

Cheers!

The OP question was

So if the Sun is above us and the moon is above us then why is the moon not fully visible? We are observing them both from below so we are not obstructing any light from the sun to the moon.

You are being argumentative and bringing ad hominem's into the discussion to support your standing, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the refractive behaviour of light, both in a vacuum or in our environment.

by Guest Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:49 am

Hi actinglikeabanker

i'm a little confused as to your comment.

a) It's a thread - i was responding to Lopsum's query in the comment prior to mine.

b) Ad hominem - isn't that when you attack the messenger's credibility rather than the message? i honestly don't remember doing that - doesn't sound like me.... can you show me where please so that i may apologise?

c);Not arguing alab - debating.

d) Given that NASA holds all the cards and is lying could you please provide just one real piece of non- NASA dependant evidence of what light does and how it acts outside of our enclosure?

Thanks for your interest.

Cheers!

by **Lopsum** Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:22 am

heated and divisive with no resolution in the end but violence.

do you want a fight about it? oh look you got me so riled up!!

iamani trolling isnt acceptable , trying to rile up members and continue into pointless debate is trolling.

by max2000 Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:24 pm

Stanley Kubrick was employed by NASA to fake the Moon landing Films.

Mr Kubrick is such a Perfectionist he went to the Moon to make the Films. Very Happy

All the Junk and Footprints are still there.

Reasons we haven't been back is Expense and we now know there is pretty much nothing there.

by **Lopsum** Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:33 pm

the moon landing has compelling evidence that it did not happen though i for one have not concluded either way 100% . Both theorys rely on 2nd hand info as i have not researched the moon landing ,only seen the vids on youtube like the rest of us.It has not been proven either way.
The point is the moon landing has nothing to do with how the moon looks at some points in its cycle, so the whole nassa lie (flatearth rhetoric) does not give adequate necessity to throw away all of science ( trolls have a necessity in order to perpetuate the argument as we have seen in this thread!)
it works both ways some trolls start anti flatearth threads just to stir up some arguments like we see too. Not to say all concerned are trolls but it is usually the case that they all get involved precisely because it stirs up endless debate and its a way to seemingly divide a group(unless the group are wise to it!) .This is why this site is not a good place for flatearth debate , not because of the debate but how the debate is used and operates as a trigger. Nothing we agree on is affected by the shape of the earth so we see how pointless it is except as a mental exercise to reach your own conclusion and you dont need this site to do that for you .
The troll part of the debate falls down at this point Nassa are not the only sources of evidence and just because they may or may not have lied about the moon (a debate in itself) does not automatically give reason to refute other established facts (which have their own background in science and nothing to do with nassa). So if there is debate to be had it needs to be beyond this point and not backwards!
if we question everything we have to question the questions too or we fail and waste our time! sunny

by Sponsored content