[Gulliver]

That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?

Are you just grasping at straws now or...?

I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.

[Ghost of V]

That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?

Are you just grasping at straws now or...?

I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.

I'm sorry that my explanation eludes you. I have given you all my knowledge on the Antimoon. Make of it what you will.

It's funny that you're demanding evidence when it hasn't even been proven beyond a doubt that your theory is correct. Which is that the Earth is round. Maybe once you prove this to us without the use of doctored photos, straw man arguments, and intellectual dishonesty we can have a productive discussion? I look forward to that day.

[Gulliver]

That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?

Are you just grasping at straws now or...?

I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.

I'm sorry that my explanation eludes you. I have given you all my knowledge on the Antimoon. Make of it what you will.

It's funny that you're demanding evidence when it hasn't even been proven beyond a doubt that your theory is correct. Which is that the Earth is round. Maybe once you prove this to us without the use of doctored photos, straw man arguments, and intellectual dishonesty we can have a productive discussion? I look forward to that day.

It's the "Shadow Object".

So you give up providing evidence. I expected as much.

Does "my" theory have proof? What a silly question. Please study the Scientific Method and try again.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you have any RET evidence that was doctored, or RET arguments that were fallacious, or some other RET dishonesty, please do open a new thread to present it. I'd really hate to see this noob's question derailed. Thanks.

[markjo]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

[Loominaty]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

I also want to know this. Seems quite contradictory to me 
Furthermore, I'd like to know how we can see the moon at all. In school and university I've learnt that the moonlight is just a reflection of the sunlight which sounds plausible but however this doesn't work if sun and moon are in the same orbital plane. The moon would always be invisible, it would be completely dark at night, there would be no lunar phases, etc.
I'd really like to know this 

[Gulliver]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

I also want to know this. Seems quite contradictory to me 
Furthermore, I'd like to know how we can see the moon at all. In school and university I've learnt that the moonlight is just a reflection of the sunlight which sounds plausible but however this doesn't work if sun and moon are in the same orbital plane. The moon would always be invisible, it would be completely dark at night, there would be no lunar phases, etc.
I'd really like to know this 

Let me try to answer for the FEers...

Again, the Sun (and the Moon) do not orbit, so they have no "orbital plane". Perhaps, just "gear plane" or "plane" would be the best terms.

According to Rowbotham's Earth is not a Globe, the Moon shines by its own, harmful, light. (I have posted a extensive critique of EnaG that shows EnaG is inherently flawed and worthless.)
According to the "other site", it's caused by self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases.

So, if you expect a reasonable, consistent answer, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

Also, I strongly suggest that you discount Vauxhall's post. He has the basics of FET wrong. The Moon causes solar eclipses in most "flavors" of FET, not the "AntiMoon", and definitely not the "Shadow Object".

Best wishes in getting decent responses from FEers.

[Ghost of V]

There are actually a few theories on how Solar eclipses occur. One is that the antimoon causes it, and one is that the moon disc causes it. In the second theory, the Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude and the moon disc is located below it.  A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land. People who observe the eclipse are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse. If this means that I can't "grasp the basics of FET" (Lol), then so be it. I just choose to come up with my own conclusions based on empirical evidence. Gulliver chooses to rephrase things he read on a message board, and then he expects you to assume that he's a reliable source of information (lol).

And Gulliver, I suggest you drop the holier-than-thou attitude. It hurts your credibility. Just a helpful tip. Maybe your rampant ego is acceptable in the lower fora, but it's not appreciated here.

[markjo]

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

[Ghost of V]

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.

[Loominaty]

I get the feeling that the explanations are getting more and more ridiculous. I mean, "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases" that sounds pretty retarded. If you compared the spectrum of the sun's and moon's light you would see that they are identical, leading to the conclusion that they both come from the same source.
All these explanations seem to me as vague assumptions without any evidence and no logical connection. I mean, if you've seen the Anti Moon or Shadow Object or however you want to call it, then why not show us? No one said they would deny photographic evidence here or am i missing out something? It's just you, Mr Vauxhall, who doesn't want to deliver these lovely shots of the Anti Moon you took.

[Ghost of V]

I get the feeling that the explanations are getting more and more ridiculous. I mean, "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases" that sounds pretty retarded. If you compared the spectrum of the sun's and moon's light you would see that they are identical, leading to the conclusion that they both come from the same source.
All these explanations seem to me as vague assumptions without any evidence and no logical connection. I mean, if you've seen the Anti Moon or Shadow Object or however you want to call it, then why not show us? No one said they would deny photographic evidence here or am i missing out something? It's just you, Mr Vauxhall, who doesn't want to deliver these lovely shots of the Anti Moon you took.

It is difficult to capture an invisible object on film. I have said this at least four times now. Do not make me say it again.

Also, please quote where I said anything about "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases". Don't put words in my mouth. Gulliver gave you a ridiculous sounding theory because he is a Round Earther. He is trying to discredit FET.

Also, have you personally done the tests to prove that the light from the moon is the same light emanating from the sun? If so, please post your research logs. I'd love to see them.

[markjo]

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Since when are objects that orbit very close to the sun visible in the night sky?  Or do you have a definition of "night sky" that's different from the one that's normally used?

[Ghost of V]

Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.

That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.

It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Since when are objects that orbit very close to the sun visible in the night sky?  Or do you have a definition of "night sky" that's different from the one that's normally used?

"Very close to the Sun"
Excuse me? The Shadow Objects might orbit the Sun, but it's not very close to it. Otherwise we'd be seeing Solar eclipses all the time.

The shadow object might actually travel very far away from the Earth and be pulled back into the Sun due to its aetheric pull value.

[Loominaty]

Also, have you personally done the tests to prove that the light from the moon is the same light emanating from the sun? If so, please post your research logs. I'd love to see them.

I might for sure do that, but I'm only a student, I don't have enough money or time to get good instruments for reasonable results right now.
For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.

[markjo]

"Very close to the Sun"
Excuse me? The Shadow Objects might orbit the Sun, but it's not very close to it. Otherwise we'd be seeing Solar eclipses all the time.

The shadow object might actually travel very far away from the Earth and be pulled back into the Sun due to its aetheric pull value.

Then why did you say:

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.

[Ghost of V]

Typo.

For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.

I prefer to think for myself, but if you're fine being a sheep then more power to you.

[Loominaty]

Typo.

For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.

I prefer to think for myself, but if you're fine being a sheep then more power to you.

Either I believe in your theories or in science. There seems to be no difference from my point of view. Thus, believing in science would be the better choice I guess, wouldn't it?

[Yamato]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

Thanks to elongation.
This can show (or hide) Mercury or Venus when you try seeing it. This workd on Round Earth model.
Now, for the Flat Earth model, I can't say for sure, but chances are that planetary elongation could not exist in their Flat Earth model. I'm still investigating and doing calculations and observations, so I can't ensure it right now.

[Yamato]

Interesting, if slightly naive questions.

Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

What is the exact distance from the Shadow Object to the Sun?
What is its diameter in arcseconds (or Arcminutes), if it was observed from the earth?

Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the Shadow Object is made of dense Aether. I require an explanation about what mechanism allows the Aether to be more dense in that exact spot than on the rest of the universe, and which mechanism allows this dense Aether to orbyt around the Sun, knowing that the Sun in your flat earth model doesn't have gravity force.

Thanks.

[earthy guy]

Could it be because the moon is a reflection of the earth, and the sun (whatever it is) is further away from the reflection and some how the reflection blocks the suns view. Could this explain eclipses?

Also the moon light could still be the reflection of sunlight.

Btw I'm not a flat earther, I just want to know what people think of this.