Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

HOW IS THE MOON LIT?
Another exploration of the official story of our position compared with those of the Moon and Sun.

Please, do not be misled by innocent question. I am not out to disprove that the Moon is lit by the light of the Sun. Only, I wish to explore just how that light travels from the Sun to the Moon to the Earth, and why it implies room for different interpretations of light; or, if in the case it becomes clear that there are other things at work, to introduce those questions to a debate long since thought settled and over with.

Let's begin with a simple diagram.
Here we see the Moon from the surface of Earth during an unspecified time.

It already gets tricky if I ask you: what time of day is this?

Some might answer immediately, "Night" because I have drawn the background black. But look again at the angle of light, and hence what must be the implied angle of sun light.
You see, if you see the Moon during day light (and it's important for my point that you make your own observations of this — it is a fun and simple thing to look for) you should be able to directly compare the position of the Sun with the angle of lighting of the Moon.

And you should find, that the position of the Sun more or less is casting parallel light on a perpendicular relationship between the Moon and Earth. However, what is curious to observe is the Sun when it does not in fact relate to the logical position. Instead of seeing this:
We are likely to see this:
Which implies a light behavior like this:
QED Proof: Evenly broad sun lighting of the Moon is observed not to travel in perfectly straight lines from the Sun to the Moon to our eyes on Earth. So where is the flaw in light, and where does this illusion stem from? Curvature of atmosphere, curvature of observation, curvature of light itself (and so on)?

---

First, let us pause to set up ignorant answers to this 'problem' that we can dismiss outright. This is not to set up a straw man but to show where at least every theorist can hopefully agree — no matter what shape their cosmos is.

This off the cuff, non-official explanation is that the Sun "has already set" when the innermost edge of its corona, or the edge of the Sun's disc itself, touches the horizon. Hence, the argument goes, the Sun is factually much lower than it appears, and it is only the Earth's atmosphere which carries a hologram or mirage of the Sun over the "edge" of a rounded Earth. There are two problems with this explanation.

The first, most problematic of problems, if you will, is that this would make the curvature of light to hit the Moon even more extreme of a divergence. Which is possible, but which I'll address later on in this post. So from that argument, the situation is more like this:
Again, I do not yet have a problem with this explanation, except that it should then be very apparent we may have some explaining to do.

The second problem, however, is that this behavior of light must necessarily effect both the Sun's light and the Moon's light. Which would imply — by the notion that both the Sun and Moon are equally affected by "magnifying glass" or "fish eye" effect since both our completely outside the Earth's atmosphere — a divergence like this:
This, again, is not a particularly bad problem if you can explain the "fish eye" effect adequately — but it necessarily must be a fantastic explanation because the distance we can see in any cardinal planar (N,E,S,W) is a couple magnitudes greater than our atmosphere's thickness as it sits above us. Our atmosphere does not go 250km up into the thermosphere, and we do not apparently see any curving effect when looking 250km straight across a channel. Or do we? Is this the same effect that causes the Earth to appear flat, when in fact, it may not be? And if it isn't flat (as we all assume) how much of this curving of light — which I hope we can all agree is occurring — capable of masking other models of the Earth, such as a more or less convex or concave or variant surface?

The second ignorant answer we can hopefully all dismiss has to do with the acute angle of the Moon to the Earth as opposed to the Sun, and that this should cause a viewer from Earth to see a different angle of the Moon, which would cause the illusion of sun light originating from a different angle.

This could be illustrated like so:
Where the faces of the Moon on the right of the illustration indicate what the observer (that giant, stark-white stick person on Blue No. 6 dye colored Earth) might see.

This explanation should hold no water whatsoever due to the fact that the face of the Moon does not change significantly enough. But it cannot even hold a candle to the official NASA numbers for the Earth's, Moon's and Sun's respective distances.
Pretty significant distance, right? One would expect the Moon's interesting adherence to the ecliptical compared with the Earth's official "spinning motion" at a wonky angle should result in significant lighting differences between the Earth and Moon, at least from the Earth's perspective.

Maybe not.
That is to illustrate; here is the Earth's distance from the Moon (approximately "60 Earth radii away" as given dumbly by Wikipedia, but it's basically as dumb as a more accurate official number so let's go with it).

There is no position on a round-model Earth, not from either "end" of a West-East dichotomy nor from either "pole", which provides a significant parallax on our observation of the Moon to change the angle of sun light.

The lighting of the Earth must, by official definition, be almost indistinguishably equal to that of the Moon. This means that if you are observing the Moon at any perpendicular to a level plane of observation (level with "gravity" — whew, a whole other discussion!), then you should be able to visualize yourself on the most distant point of the Moon's disc in the sky and imagine the Moon as the Earth; and imagine that the lighting of the Earth must be equivalent. So, is it day or night on Earth, if the fourth moon image is observed following aforementioned criteria?
ANSWER: Since it should match the lighting of the Moon from bottom to top of its disc, and "you" are positioned at the top of the Earth disc, you should be standing in sunlight from a position where you should be able to observe the Sun.

Are you not? Interesting. Let's talk about it.

And not to drop another pile of weirdness in the midst of it all, and possibly from a completely different argument, but let's also talk about the illusion of watching an airplane "climb" the sky seemingly straight upwards, leaving its contrail appearing like a rocket launch as it gets nearer and nearer to our position. Does this not imply a curvature and natural range limit to light's travel rather than a literal curvature of the airplane's path?

This is what we "see" mapped to an official idea of where things might "actually" be. The Earth appears flat but curves suddenly at the horizon. The airplane path is visible on the horizon but sharply arcs when it is just flying straight. The Sun and Moon appear at horizon level when they are actually "beyond" that part of the Earth. It's a really odd kind of behavior of light in total, is it not? But what do these observations actually mean? Can we dismiss any part of this illustration so that it actually makes sense? I feel as though real observation and the official model for things collides in an extraordinarily awkward way, like this:
Please help me figure it out. We can make it so none of us is lost on this matter, can't we?

Bill Clinton believes in the ever expanding universe detected by "fancy telescopes":
This quote is from https://tv.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton- ... 00897.html
"Rest assured, however, the 42nd POTUS believes that the truth about little green men — or whatever extraterrestrial visitors may look like — is still out there. Clinton said he believes the “ever-expanding universe” with “billions of stars and planets out there,” some of which have been spotted by “fancy telescopes” just outside our solar system, “makes it increasingly less likely that we're alone.”
“If we were visited some day, I wouldn't be surprised,” Clinton said. “I just hope that it's not like ‘Independence Day.'”"

JLapage wrote:Bill Clinton believes in the ever expanding universe detected by "fancy telescopes":
This quote is from https://tv.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton- ... 00897.html
"Rest assured, however, the 42nd POTUS believes that the truth about little green men — or whatever extraterrestrial visitors may look like — is still out there. Clinton said he believes the “ever-expanding universe” with “billions of stars and planets out there,” some of which have been spotted by “fancy telescopes” just outside our solar system, “makes it increasingly less likely that we're alone.”
“If we were visited some day, I wouldn't be surprised,” Clinton said. “I just hope that it's not like ‘Independence Day.'”"

I know which 'fancy' telescopes he's talking about.
They are U-shaped. You look through the eye-piece, and the body of the telescope curves down, under, and back up again, ensuring that the objective lens is snugly fitted up the observer's own backside. I believe Stephen Hawking owned several.

^
That's made my day!! Thanks arc

Question:
If NASA lies about everything and NASA says the other planets and moons in our system are uninhabited deserts unable to support life as we know it then what conclusion can we draw from this?

Lux wrote:

Question:
If NASA lies about everything and NASA says the other planets and moons in our system are uninhabited deserts unable to support life as we know it then what conclusion can we draw from this?

My conclusion is that it’s almost purely (apart from scamming tax dollars) about maintenance of our belief in the Heliocentric solar system. This is important to ‘them’ because if it were configured any other way then our perception of ourselves and everything around us would be vastly different than it is today. ‘Creation’ would certainly look a great deal less ridiculous if it were generally understood and accepted that we were stationary with everything else revolving around us (as posited in the opener of this thread) or indeed if Earth were flat, or if it were Simon Shack’s Solar System (SSSS) or concave Earth theory (CET).
‘They’ do not want people to think this. ‘They’ want us to believe that we are just a chance occurrence, nothing more than ‘evolutionised’ bacteria...that there is no ‘God’, no ‘spiritual creator’...just ‘them’ and only ‘them’ as our leaders / overlords and guiding light, something which can only be achieved by establishing the narrative that Earth rotates and like all other planets, orbits the Sun which in turn is just an infinitesimally small and insignificant dot within our 100,000 light year diameter galaxy who also happens to be rotating and careering through space at some mind bending velocity. In other words, the most unlikely of all models proposed both past and present of the Universe that could be attached to any credible notion of a ‘higher being’.

Before NASA etc, ‘they’ had very little in the way of actual proof of all this. Just ‘authoritative literature’, Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect, non of which actually prove anything at all, but, with the ‘successful launch’ of the worlds first orbiter in 1957 everything was finally put to rest or at least substantially reinforced. See, Sputnik could not have circled the globe if it was anything but...errm...a globe. It could not have stayed up there, countering gravity with its velocity if gravity was anything other than what ‘they’ say it is. The Moon could not have been visited if the solar system was in fact classically geocentric as our natural satellite would have been traveling far too fast for any ‘space ship’ to rendezvous, same with Mars and all the rest. Etc, etc.
In short, NASA et al know the basic machinations of the Universe otherwise no mission, not even a single Earth orbit would have been a success. Therefore the cosmos is as good as infinite in its dimensions meaning that it’s old...so old that our Godless and very ordinary planet has simply evolved to eventually support humankind who have nothing except ‘them’ to cohere to.

Not so sure that NASA is saying that all other bodies in our system are lifeless deserts, in fact I’d go so far as to say the opposite and am quite surprised that the latest Mars malarkey hasn’t yet turned up trumps with some kind of organic produce. Certain moons around Saturn and Jupiter...yep, they definitely have subterranean lakes probably teeming with blind Moon bass and all those other ‘solar systems’ they’re ‘discovering’ on a daily basis with the help of ‘space telescopes’...well, who knows? Gotta be likely that at least one of ‘ems in that ‘Goldilocks zone’ they’re forever going on about with a civilization so ancient and advanced that the inhabitants could visit us for breaky and be home in time for tea.
Really, the suggestion here must be that life can get going pretty much anywhere...it’s nothing special and most certainly doesn’t need a strange bearded man in the sky to chuck lightning bolts to get things started. Guess they have yet to muster up the courage to present to the world a Martian worm, fossilized a couple of billion years ago or whatever, then run the risk of independent scrutiny that finds, as with the Moon rocks, that it is in fact just a piece of cat poo dipped in varnish.

Course, secondary to all this, the Helio model gives our protagonists carte blanche to make up any old fanny they desire. You know, stuff like dark matter, black holes, pulsars, big bangs etc which naturally equals merchandise, books, TV series, films- ad infinitum. Plus, if you’re really creative, you might get to repackage old technology as new as I think is becoming abundantly clear with our investigations into the likes of GPS. The possibilities are endless my son!

I must have missed the news about the Jovian sea bass.

Alright then, what about jovial Jovian jellyfish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

I might add that I’m not stating a personal biblical attachment. I don’t believe that any individual on Earth (be he outside a solid sphere, inside a spherical shell or simply walking a level surface) can have any true understanding or even awareness of a ‘creator’ though many of course profess to do so. No, it is just that they are taught certain beliefs from a very impressionable age which understandably stays with and this is what NASA et al seek to eradicate...very ‘globalist’ huh?

Let’s just imagine that ‘they’ had not thought of this almighty ruse of the space program and that we are, here and now with a general consensus that no man, woman / scientific equipment has ever been sent beyond the altitude restrictions of weather balloons (approx‘ 100,000 ft). What would be the discussion then? Arguments with a great deal more conviction against the Helio model is my best guess...

^ Sorry, I don't understand a word of that post.

Yeah, apologies Lux that doesn’t quite read right...in fact, sounds embarrassingly like a load of old mystic cobblers (hmm...might have been several hours past wine-o-clock, dunno).

Here’s another crack at it in the cold light of day:

I don’t personally believe that Earth rotates and I’ll re-iterate just one bit of evidence (out of many) for this belief. The conundrum of the atmosphere; how come it somehow magically moves in sync with Earth’s surface at all different latitudes / altitudes? I’ve heard many a desperate answer to this, including gravity and friction but non of ‘em really make any sense...least of all these two.
Just imagine submerging a slowly spinning sphere in a bath tub...does the water surrounding it begin to match this rotation from top to bottom? No, course not, not even if the sphere was all lumpy and jagged (remember Earth is more than 70% liquid surface = generally smooth) and its actual surrounds, air, many times less ‘sticky’ than water.
‘K, so unless there exists a yet to be discovered cosmic force that accounts for this phenomena of an absence of constant 1,036mp/h easterly breeze at the equator and 0mp/h at the poles then I at least conclude that Earth is simply not rotating. If this is so, then something else must be happening to give us night and day meaning that the basic machinations of the solar system has to be very different from the one prescribed.

Apart from money, ‘perception’ is what I think it’s all about. If you can get people to perceive themselves as relatively non important, just a chance occurrence who simply came to be through billions of years worth of evolution then this would obviously give the dead hand of ‘governance’ considerable advantage over any ‘faith’. For example, a general population that believed the world to be flat (not suggesting that it is) would undoubtedly be giving credence to the idea that the whole thing must have been planned and created by something that was clearly superior to their ‘ruling class’ ...not something that any ‘ruling class’ would find particularly desirable IMOH.

As said before I believe that the forming of NASA et al was to...err...‘boost’ precious little evidence that existed for a Heliocentric solar system beforehand and it would now seem that they’re beginning to run out of gas!

Yeah, I am trying for a few days now to come up with an explanation of how the atmosphere could follow the spinning earth so smoothly; actually the force needed to keep an air molecule spinning is not so big.

Remember centripetal force: F=mv²/r? I calculated it and because r is so big the force needed is small, much smaller then gravity m.g. And gravity has the right direction.

I filled my sink with water and placed a rubber ball on the surface. Then I spun the floating ball and the water next to the ball spun with it.

Then I removed the wet ball from the water and I could see it was coated with water and I revolved the wet ball with my hand and the water on its surface revolved with it.

Water isn't air but they are both fluids and behave much the same way and are both subject to the "laws" of fluid mechanics.

Lux, there is a big force that acts between a solid and a fluid but only in the first milimeters (or do you call them mili-inches?)
I do not remember the name of the force but it is the same one that allows water to rise in very small tubes.

So you can only extrapolate the results of your experiment to the first milimeters of fluid around the earth.

john gault wrote:Trying to tie up all the ‘loose ends’ associated with the heliocentric “model” has got to be exhausting work as the scriptwriters attempt to maintain continuity in their ever-expanding fairytale. But what choice do they have? In for a penny, in for a pound –it’s all aboard the nonsense express to infinity and beyond!

Please understand that all of the layers of nonsense are intended to sow confusion; to make the simple appear complex; to keep you from trusting your “lying eyes”. Many (it appears) have abandoned reason in exchange for the sugar-coated lies of the magician/illusionist, preferring the warmth of the crowd over whatever truth has been shrouded by the clever lies. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

To the rest, I offer a simple proof of the absurdity of the heliocentric model. You will need the following tools: a rational mind and a globe (or the ability to visualize one).

Let us consider the sun’s path and the heliocentric model.

The “apparent” movement of the sun is the inverse of the (alleged) movement of the earth. That is, per the heliocentric model, as we rotate away from the orbital plane the sun moves south; as we rotate towards the orbital plane the sun moves north. When we are southwest of the sun, it appears to our northeast. As we -in a given location- “rotate” in a northeasterly direction, the sun appears to move to the southeast; as we “rotate” in a southeasterly direction, the sun appears to move to the northwest. Clarity on this issue requires a clear understanding of this inverse relationship between the “movement of an observer’s location” and the “movement of the sun”. Review as needed before proceeding.

The earth is said to “tilt” such that during the northern winter the “north pole” “tilts” away from the sun (at 23.44 degrees). Taking our globe into our hands (or visualizing the same) we consider the circular path (elliptical relative to the orbital plane) around the ‘axis of the globe’ of an observer standing in Topeka, KS, USA on December 21.

We note that –from “sunrise” to solar noon- the observer will travel “up the globe” (away from the orbital plane) then from noon until midnight- back “down the globe” (towards the orbital plane) and then back “up the globe”” (away from the orbital plane) as the observer rotates towards “sunrise”. The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising” in the east, moving south/southwest until noon and then moving north/northwest until it “sets” in the west. This is similar path- sun arcing to the south-- to what is observed on a daily basis--so far, so good.

Now let us consider this same circular path of the same observer in the same location (Topeka, KS, USA) on June 21.

The North Pole is now “tilted” towards the sun (at 23.44 degrees). From “sunrise” to solar noon, the observer travels “down the globe” (towards the orbital plane) and then from noon until midnight, the observer travels “up the globe” (away from the orbital plane) and then back “down the globe” as the observer “rotates” towards “sunrise”. The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising “in the east and then moving north/northwest until noon, then moving south/southwest until it “sets” in the west. This is a path—sun arcing to the north –that is NEVER observed in the “northern hemisphere”.

The sun most certainly does NOT arc to the north (as observed from northern latitudes).Yet this is exactly what we should see if the heliocentric model was correct.

You know that the sun does not arc north. Wake up, sleepy head. We do not live in tilt-a-whirl world. We live on Earth.

For extra credit (and lots of laughs) I invite you to sort out the sun’s path as observed from a point on the equator on each of the two equinoxes.

What a tangled web they weave.

“If you are confused, check with the sun…” (Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe)

JG

This is the 5th post in this topic. I do not know anyone has answered this yet. I think John Hault used wrong assumptions to arrive to his conclusion.

The observer never travels "down the globe" or "up the globe". As a result of the rotation, the observer only travels in a plane parallel to the equator and never down or up the globe, north or south. So the daily observed movement of the sun to the south and the north must have another reason.

I think a mistake many people make while trying to understand the apparent movement of the sun in the heliocentric model is to think a direction like east, or south is a fixed direction in 3d space, like it appears to be on a 2d map.
But it is not, in every place on earth these directions are different. North is the direction from your position to the north pole or the north star, east is the direction you are (or appear to be) turning and these directions change if you move around because the earth is not 2d. This includes movement caused by the rotation of the earth.

I you do not see this or understand what I mean imagine for example you are standing at the equator and you are pointing your finger to the east. Now what would happen if you were transported instantly tot the other side of the earth without any rotation while keeping your arm in the same position. Would you still be pointing east?
I also made this mistake.
You would be pointing west (while standing on your head, rather silly)
It is easier if you imagine it is morning and you are pointing at the sun. On the other side of the earth you are still pointing at the sun but the sun is setting.

If you cannot see this use a toy figurine and a ball.

So how can we explain the daily observed movement from the sun to the south and to the north in a heliocentric model?
Because the direction that for the observer is south in a 3d universe is changing 24 hour a day. For an observer in the northern hemisphere, midnight is the time of day that south is pointing the most away from the sun and noon is the time of day that south is pointing the most toward the sun.
I know there must be a better way of saying this but does that make sense??

All that I wrote does not prove that the earth is rotating (nor does it disprove it). It only shows it is more complicated then some people think.

Seneca wrote:Lux, there is a big force that acts between a solid and a fluid but only in the first milimeters (or do you call them mili-inches?)
I do not remember the name of the force but it is the same one that allows water to rise in very small tubes.

So you can only extrapolate the results of your experiment to the first milimeters of fluid around the earth.

I guess I just can't picture a revolving Earth turning within its atmosphere for millions/billions of years without the atmosphere eventually ending up turning more or less with it.

Would a planet's atmosphere really remain motionless for all that time while the planet within it turned?

I realize that's not a very scientific observation but it just feels right to me that the atmosphere would end up turning with the Earth.

Also, much, if not all of the atmosphere's content comes from the Earth. Or, at least that is my understanding. Water vapor certainly comes from evaporation of surface waters at least. If the source of the atmosphere is turning (the Earth) wouldn't the atmosphere itself turn as a result?

Jupiter's "great red spot" is a feature of its atmosphere and it can be observed with amateur telescopes to revolve around the planet.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4YSG63EeE

I don't know what the relationship between the red spot and the planet's turning is but it's at least some evidence that a planet's atmosphere can revolve.