[ICanScienceThat]

Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.



Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.

Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent.

We could almost forgive Rowbotham for making such claims. The telescopes of his day may not have been as powerful or as abundant as ours are now. Let us not make any conjectures, but look simply at the evidence before us and judge fairly what it is we see. We'll be careful to note every detail, and see if we cannot determine whether we are looking at a pimple or a crater.

I do not wish to debate an issue with you as if we were opposing lawyers. Let's try to remain objective. Here's an image to start with:



This appears at first glance to be a sphere illuminated from the left. Or it could be a bowl lit from the right. What other shapes should we consider? I'll leave that to you to answer while I look closer to test my first 2 hypotheses.

If we look at these "craters" on the left side of the image, we see a clear pattern to them. They are ellipses that are bright on their right edges and dark on their left. As we move from right to left across the image, I see a definite trend that the dark areas of these "craters" grow longer stretching farther to the right.

Next I notice that to the right side of each "crater" past the bright patch, we start to see an extended dark patch. This looks like a shadow.

Could these be pimples? If these are pimples rather than craters, then the moon is lit from the right. That would mean the entire moon is lit from the right, in which case our first guess of its shape was backwards. It would have to be an inside-out sphere - a bowl.

So let's consider the "bowl" hypothesis. My first thought is that is inconsistent with the phases of the moon. We see the phases going all the way from new moon to full moon and back. Can a bowl do that? Isn't there going to be a point where we see the edges of the bowl? I think that's enough to reject the "bowl" hypothesis.

I'm left with the sphere hypothesis, and that makes these craters.

If you can contribute to this objectively, please jump in. What else can we deduce from images like these?

[ICanScienceThat]

To continue along this thread... let me draw your attention to the top of the image. Here we see our "craters" are still ellipses, but they are oriented differently. This pattern definitely suggests a 3D sphere shape for the moon. (Either sphere or inside-out sphere/bowl).

If these are craters, they appear to be lit from the left and the front.

If these are pimples, they are lit from the right and the back.

I wonder... can we catch one of these "craters" edge-on against the blackness? If we can, we'll have our answer definitively.

Indeed, there's a big one right at the top of the image. It looks distinctly like a crater.

I'm quite confident that we can pour over several of these types of images to see what happens as the phase of the moon changes. What would you like to investigate deeper? What questions are left for you?

[JHelzer]

What about light refraction as photons hit the boundary between space and the atmolayer?  Could light refract and/or reflect off the boundary to cause moon effects?

[Tom Bishop]

ICST, I didn't have any bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:



The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from serveral sources:

- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.

[ICanScienceThat]

ICST, I didn't have an bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:



The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from two sources:

- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.

If we can move beyond what we may have read from Rowbotham, we can made deductions based on evidence. That's the scientific way and also the zetetic way. I am asking you to look at this evidence and deduce with me.

Yes we must take care not to make assumptions, but it would be foolish to dismiss all evidence out of hand simply because there is always the chance we could make a mistake. That's why it's important to coordinate with others on these things. Help me make sure I haven't made any assumptions. Do you disagree with anything in my analysis so far? Do you have anything to add to it?

[Tom Bishop]

I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself.

Perhaps those craters or other elements might be enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish, or even light that travels though the puffer fish, if the puffer fish were semi-transparent, as described in the chapter Moon Transparent.

I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:

The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.

[iamcpc]

Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.

In your OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us.
In Jrows OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon rotated.

How can we test these two conflicting OPINIONS?

I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.

"It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us " Is not very objective to me. You looked at some pictures, decided that the pictures supported your hypothesis and claimed it was "incontrovertible". I believe the pictures supported your hypothesis but I need more than to look at some pictures. I need some sort of test that we can all agree on. Looking at pictures is not such a test.

On 1. above: The photos of the moon show what appears to be shadows behind craters. This is not disputed. (Is it?) This makes that an objective conclusion. There appear to be shadows cast by the craters. This is strong evidence for the externally lit hypothesis and is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis. Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute.

Again the claim that "shadows cast by the craters is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis" Is definitely biased. There is CLEARLY still light hitting my eye from the dark side of the moon. The same light is also hitting the camera in the pictures. You even saw it yourself here: "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too."

Finally, I noted that the moon is opaque. (Didn't show it, but we could test this if you want.) This rules out the hologram hypothesis but leaves the externally lit and self-lit hypothesis workable.
I summarize this all to say the only evidence we have here so far only matches the externally lit hypothesis. More evidence and further exploration of what we have is welcome.

I agree that  this evidence suggest that the moon is not a hologram.

On 2. above: JRowe made some claim that the moon is self-illuminated. Was any evidence put forth to back this up? As I've said, I didn't see what it was, so bring it forth, and I agree to consider it.

to here I will quote you "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too." I believe that is evidence that supports one of the 2 following claims:
1. The dark side of the moon is creating it's own light.
2. Light from some other source is hitting the dark side of the moon.

The moon could be partially self-lit and also partially externally lit. There is a thread of logic that follows this point that I'd rather not go down just yet. For now, I'd like to focus on whether or not we can rule out the externally lit hypothesis - be it in addition to self-lit or without.

This is a VERY objective thing to say! Thank you for at least CONSIDERING other ideas.

Based on the shadows I have two current hypothesis.
1. The moon is getting light from a bright celestial body AND generating it's own light.
2. The moon is getting light from a bright celestial body AND the moon is also getting light from somewhere else.

[ICanScienceThat]

I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself, and perhaps, enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish.

I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:

The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.

Without any quotes from anyone, would you mind listing out for me, all hypotheses that you feel should be considered from this point forward. I'll start us with:
1) The moon is a sphere(ish) with craters and such on it that is externally lit.
2) The moon is semi-transparent and internally lit.
edit: forgot to add 3) It could be some of each

Got it right? Are there more?

[ICanScienceThat]

iampc, if you would like to help me in my quest for objectivity, how about some constructive contributions?

I am trying to fairly and objectively evaluate evidence. If you think I've made a mistake, then please point it out.

Simply coming to a conclusion does not make me biased. My conclusion is based on evidence. If you have any reason to suggest I am mistaken, point that out rather than trying to attack my character.

Edit: And I didn't even come to any conclusions yet. I said, "This is strong evidence for" and "I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something." and "Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute." etc.

[JHelzer]

Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects.  If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?

[iamcpc]

I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.


The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

When I look at the moon I see a dark area or shape produced by the wall of the crater coming between between rays of light and the surface.



The shadow is always formed on the opposite side of the light. I've never shined a flashlight on something and seen the shadow come toward my flashlight.



The reason why there are no shadows on one side of the moon is because that is the area in which there is nothing coming between the light and the surface which would indicate that it's external.
Also the shadows all point in the same direction which supports the idea that the light is coming from an external source. If the shadows somehow came internally they would always point away from the moon.

[JHelzer]

I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.

[JHelzer]

This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.

[ICanScienceThat]

I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.

If the moon is internally lit and semi-transparent, then it is possible these are simply dark patches in the moon's surface. We can test that by checking whether they move and how they move as the moon's phase changes. We know how shadows are expected to change, and these match those patterns. We should be able to observe how the shadows move to rule out one of these possibilities.

Is there another mechanism that the self-lit idea could create such shadows?

[Tom Bishop]

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.

Lets go back to the Puffer Fish image an notice an observation:


Click to enlarge

The interior light source of the Puffer Fish is off center. In fact, this off center interior light source is creating a "lunar phase" upon the puffer fish. The puffer fish is not 100% illuminated.

It is this off center lighting that can create shadows in craters.

Quick illustration:



We see that an internal light source can cause shadows in a crater alone, without the need for an external source at all.

[ICanScienceThat]

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.

Lets go back to the Puffer Fish image an notice an observation:


Click to enlarge

The interior light source of the Puffer Fish is off center. In fact, this off center interior light source is creating a "lunar phase" upon the puffer fish. The puffer fish is not 100% illuminated.

Quick illustration:



We see that an internal light source can cause shadows in a crater alone, without the need for an external source at all.

Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?

[ICanScienceThat]

Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?

I gave that some thought.

We should be able to project backwards from the highlights we see in the craters to see where each one appears to be lit from. If the moon is internally lit, we can identify where the light appears to be coming from inside the moon.

We should likewise be able to trace the brightness of the moon's light over its surface the internal light hypothesis should produce a brightness fall-off consistent with increasing distance from the light source... although even as I type it I suspect the crescent moon is going to disprove this idea quite rapidly... What do you think about the crescent moon? Is there a way to internally light the moon and make a crescent?

[Tom Bishop]

Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?

I am explaining what I believe to be the gist of Earth Not a Globe. But that is correct. In ENAG the moon is a crystalline entity which has a moving internal light source.

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.



There are some attempted explanations for this, but they are untenable, comparing it to how bodies tilt when you walk around them, or when they pass over you. Under the vast distances of Heliocentricism, however, the moon would only shift/tilt to perspective by 2 degrees. Ie. -- when it passes over you it would hardly tilt or shift at all.

There is also the fact that often during the phases of the moon we can see light coming from the dark part of the moon, which was touched on earlier. If we brighten up some of these scenes we can see that the moon is sending light from all parts of its darkend body. The moon is reflecting light from the night side of the earth?

Are you proposing that the moon has an internal light source that moves back and forth causing the phases of the moon?

I gave that some thought.

We should be able to project backwards from the highlights we see in the craters to see where each one appears to be lit from. If the moon is internally lit, we can identify where the light appears to be coming from inside the moon.

We should likewise be able to trace the brightness of the moon's light over its surface the internal light hypothesis should produce a brightness fall-off consistent with increasing distance from the light source... although even as I type it I suspect the crescent moon is going to disprove this idea quite rapidly... What do you think about the crescent moon? Is there a way to internally light the moon and make a crescent?

From looking at the shadows it seems that the light of the moon would be originating from a place off center opposite from the side of illumination.

[garygreen]

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

[Tom Bishop]

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.