Re: The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:23 pm

Posted by waykiwayki on 05/19/2015
I propose we should see as the mug, white paper, and spotlight examples in this thread........an ellipse. The distance is fairly non important in this claim, as the tangible thing is that we can see the moon in the sky as around 1-2cm (from the eye), and when we create something that appears 1-2cm too (mug, paper, spotlight), it forms an ellipse as it moves away.

You do realise most Flat Earthers are completely baffled by the moon, and it's probable that over 50% think it's a sphere as they haven't thought too deeply on the "one face for all" fact.

*
If a flat disk in the sky stays parallel to the earth facing down, i just cannot see how it could do the above two videos - it should appear thin to the eye (ellipsed) as it moves away. - close to the vanishing point.

The sun is deemed a sphere by many in the FE community - so we find justified images like the one below, but i just can't see this working for a flat disk moon facing down.....simply due to perspective, and the way our eyes work.

given the sun image rules and perspective - i would expect to see something like below as it moved from above me to further away (excuse the crude 'paint' job).

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:24 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/19/2015
The Sun and Moon look like flat circles of light to me, so do all the stars and "planets" (wandering stars). If the Moon is spherical, then why does everyone always only see the same face, at various inclinations, no matter where they are on earth? If it were spherical people in Antarctica for example would see a completely different face than those in America. If the Moon were spherical it would imply more solidity than it has been proven to have. We can see the blue sky through the "craters" just as we can see stars/planets occulting during waxing/waning Moons. These all point towards the Moon being a flat luminous disc that is not densely physical, which revolves over us horizontally in a circular path. The fact that it doesn't turn into an ellipse like you so badly want it to, is likely because it's too high for such an effect to happen or be noticeable. I still feel like we're beating a dead horse here, but you're welcome to bring any more evidence you have to the table.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:25 pm

Posted by waykiwayki on 05/19/2015

May 19, 2015 13:20:16 GMT Admin said:
The Sun and Moon look like flat circles of light to me, so do all the stars and "planets" (wandering stars). If the Moon is spherical, then why does everyone always only see the same face, at various inclinations, no matter where they are on earth? If it were spherical people in Antarctica for example would see a completely different face than those in America. If the Moon were spherical it would imply more solidity than it has been proven to have. We can see the blue sky through the "craters" just as we can see stars/planets occulting during waxing/waning Moons. These all point towards the Moon being a flat luminous disc that is not densely physical, which revolves over us horizontally in a circular path. The fact that it doesn't turn into an eclipse like you so badly want it to, is likely because it's too high for such an effect to happen or be noticeable. I still feel like we're beating a dead horse here, but you're welcome to bring any more evidence you have to the table.

From tons of research I agree with all the points you make.....it just can't be a sphere for the "face" reasons.

But i just can't see how it acts like it does in those two videos if it's flat and facing down - so i'm stuck between a rock and hard place.

I'm reaching out to others in various corners of the web to get other opinions.

I actually don't want it to become an ellipse, then i could rest happy in my knowledge - but every other circle changes into an ellipse (that appears 1-2cm above) - so i might just have to pull my hair out.

Maybe the creator/s made it a mystical object to spin us out if we ever got to close to the edges of our reality construct.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:25 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/20/2015
Again, considering that the Moon is hundreds of thousands of times further away than all your examples, and your drawing is also guilty of being just as wildly out of proportion, my explanation stands. Also the Moon is circling towards and away its zenith from your perspective, not just moving in a straight line as shown in your picture. This semi-circle motion from beyond your view/horizon, to zenith, to opposite horizon would not and clearly does not cause the elliptical effect caused by low-laying, straight-moving objects.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/20/2015
There were more [brackets] of his than quotes of mine, and the quote had nothing to do with circles turning into ellipses. I was wondering when that clear shill would mention the fact that he was being banned after each post and then proxying-in to continue. Normal "guests" don't do that and would say something right away. That guy's so used to being banned he just proxies right back like it's nothing. And Mark, you and your shill buddy's elliptical Moon non-sense is D.O.A., "let's just deal with WHAT information and data?" You have no "concrete" objection here and you're now derailing more than one thread with this. And Schpankme, I would love to shut off Guest accounts, but the way it's set up then non-registered members can't even view the forum which is not worth it because most of the activity comes from casual non-registered viewers.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/21/2015
Then please share said info because so far I'm not seeing it. Also if we agree on 299 points, then please contribute more such beneficial research to the forum instead of just spamming the same refuted objection over and over. I stated:

The Sun and Moon look like flat circles of light to me, so do all the stars and "planets" (wandering stars). If the Moon is spherical, then why does everyone always only see the same face, at various inclinations, no matter where they are on earth? If it were spherical people in Antarctica for example would see a completely different face than those in America. If the Moon were spherical it would imply more solidity than it has been proven to have. We can see the blue sky through the "craters" just as we can see stars/planets occulting during waxing/waning Moons. These all point towards the Moon being a flat luminous disc that is not densely physical, which revolves over us horizontally in a circular path. The fact that it doesn't turn into an ellipse like you so badly want it to, is likely because it's too high for such an effect to happen or be noticeable. I still feel like we're beating a dead horse here, but you're welcome to bring any more evidence you have to the table.

To which you said: "From tons of research I agree with all the points you make.....it just can't be a sphere for the "face" reasons."

So you admit that from the tons of research you and I have done, you agree with all my points proving it to be a flat disc, facing horizontally, moving around Earth in circles. But then you just post a couple vimeo videos and say, "But i just can't see how it acts like it does in those two videos if it's flat and facing down - so i'm stuck between a rock and hard place." The videos don't present any new evidence. They show the Moon just like it is in every other video, but suddenly for some reason, you claim these videos stick you between a rock and a hard place, and everything you just agreed with me is now out the window!?

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by questioneverything on 05/23/2015
Here's something super interesting I just learned from a friend about the moon. You can build a solar oven, using the sun reflected inward to cook things, but she said you can also build a "night freezer" or "lunar freezer" that uses the same kind of setup to cool or freeze things. I'm going to try it with my kids as a science project this summer. If it works, that will be so "cool!" And it will further illustrate the unique properties of moonlight.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:27 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/23/2015
Regardless of whether the Moon is flat, spherical, or a triangle it is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth. That stars and planets have been seen through the Moon is a fact, but to this day NASA, modern astronomy and a world full of brainwashed heliocentrists maintain that the Moon is a spherical, Earth-like habitation capable of landing spaceships on. They claim the Moon (and Mars for that matter!) are habitable desert planets, much like Star Wars’ Tatooine, Dune’s Arrakis and other such imaginary science-fiction worlds. Since long before the staged Apollo “Moon landings” these Masonic Sun-worshipping heliocentrists have been claiming the Moon to be a solid planetoid complete with plains, plateaus, mountains, valleys and craters though nothing of the sort can be discerned even using the best telescopes.

“Astronomers have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordinance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (335)

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:27 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/24/2015
That excuse they've created doesn't explain why you can clearly see through the Moon/'craters' to the blue on the other side. And as I already mentioned, stars/planets HAVE been seen through the Moon and even recorded by the establishment's own Royal Astronomical Society:

On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon … I have seen a similar apparent projection several times … The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.” I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.

“That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!” -J. Atkinson, “Earth Review Magazine”

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:28 pm

Posted by susie on 05/27/2015
I still say the correct word is translucent. By definition alone it fits better:

In the field of optics, transparency (also called pellucidity or diaphaneity) is the physical property of allowing light to pass through the material without being scattered. On a macroscopic scale (one where the dimensions investigated are much, much larger than the wavelength of the photons in question), the photons can be said to follow Snell's Law. Translucency (also called translucence or translucidity) is a super-set of transparency: it allows light to pass through, but does not necessarily (again, on the macroscopic scale) follow Snell's law; the photons can be scattered at either of the two interfaces where there is a change in index of refraction, or internally. In other words, a translucent medium allows the transport of light while a transparent medium not only allows the transport of light but allows for image formation. The opposite property of translucency is opacity. Transparent materials appear clear, with the overall appearance of one color, or any combination leading up to a brilliant spectrum of every color.

When light encounters a material, it can interact with it in several different ways. These interactions depend on the wavelength of the light and the nature of the material. Photons interact with an object by some combination of reflection, absorption and transmission. Some materials, such as plate glass and clean water, transmit much of the light that falls on them and reflect little of it; such materials are called optically transparent. Many liquids and aqueous solutions are highly transparent. Absence of structural defects (voids, cracks, etc.) and molecular structure of most liquids are mostly responsible for excellent optical transmission.

Materials which do not transmit light are called opaque. Many such substances have a chemical composition which includes what are referred to as absorption centers. Many substances are selective in their absorption of white light frequencies. They absorb certain portions of the visible spectrum while reflecting others. The frequencies of the spectrum which are not absorbed are either reflected back or transmitted for our physical observation. This is what gives rise to color. The attenuation of light of all frequencies and wavelengths is due to the combined mechanisms of absorption and scattering.[1]

Transparency can provide almost perfect camouflage for animals able to achieve it. This is easier in dimly-lit or turbid seawater than in good illumination. Many marine animals such as jellyfish are highly transparent.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:29 pm

Posted by dan on 06/02/2015
Wouldn't the entire Moon have a bluish tint if it was our atmosphere causing it? Why would only the 'craters' look blue? And could we see the moon so clearly, photograph it and video it through our thick atmosphere and then through 200,000 plus miles of 'space'? I guess there is a bloody good reason why past cultures revered the sun and moon as gods. They are part of our earth, for our earth and for us. Anyway mate create an account and become a part of this community if you are seriously interested in flat earth.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:30 pm

Posted by Admin on 06/05/2015
I have no problem with the Moon staying in each zodiacal constellation 2.25 days while the Sun stays 30, this just means the Moon travels laterally across the latitudes faster than the Sun. But your claiming the Moon revolves 26 hour cycles doesn't make any sense. I watch the Moon at nearly the same place in the sky at nearly the same time every single day, but you're claiming that every 6 days the Moon will be 12 hours behind the Sun, and then after 6 more days the Moon and Sun will rise together!? Then 6 days later the Moon comes 12 hours later than the Sun, then 6 more days and they come at the SAME TIME? This simply does not happen. Just like the Moon does NOT turn into an ellipse, nor should it just because you say so. I noticed you just started a Facebook group called "Flat Earth Advanced - The Moon." What is your mission here? To spread as much confusion as possible? I asked for evidence and you provided none. You simply said you're "collaborating with some others, and here's what someone said." That's heresay, not evidence, what is your evidence? Also you first said the Moon takes 26 hours, then your "collaborating someone" said it takes 25 hours, but lastly you say "you and others see it as 27 hours," so which is it?

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:31 pm

Posted by Lifeone on 06/06/2015

Moonwalk from Reel Water Productions on Vimeo.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:32 pm

Posted by o on 06/11/2015
I was planning to track the moon for a year, but there it was on the website , so I marked the June 2015 meridians in my city which gave me an eclipse like path (or might as well be looking like a lunar analemma as I don't know how to interpret the directions and degrees)

The meridian range is the same during the year. The meridian range gets wider as you get further away from the equador.

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 2nunvrkPnDMLORsInSpX

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 2nunvrkPnDMLORsInSpX

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:32 pm

Posted by o on 06/11/2015
Oh the photo is one of the google search results for analemma (a word I learned 2-3 days ago)
Now I see that there is the solar analemma as well as analemmas for other planets with different path patterns.
I am not good at using programmes, I made the month's scratch on a squared paper

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 Smiley

It would be interesting to do it for the whole year or maybe there is already one- either timelapse photo or video.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:33 pm

Posted by Admin on 06/11/2015
Great research guys! Interesting that you're coming up with 45-55 minutes behind the Sun, and Wayki Wayki has said in this thread 60, 70, 120, and 180 minutes behind the Sun. The Lunar Analemma picture with the second cycle starting a bit to the side like a spirograph pattern is also very interesting. I must object regarding your explanation of the Moon's phases being caused by the Sun's light however. The Moon clearly shines with its own unique light and cannot be merely a reflection of the Sun's. The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay. In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

“The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed. The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (144)

“Light which is reflected must necessarily be of the same character as that which causes the reflection, but the light of the Moon is altogether different from the light of the Sun, therefore the light of the Moon is not reflected from the Sun. The Sun's light is red and hot, the Moon's pale and cold - the Sun's dries and preserves certain kinds of fish and fruit, such as cod and grapes, for the table, but the Moon's turns such to putrefaction - the Sun's will often put out a coal fire, while the Moon's will cause it to bum more brightly - the rays of the Sun, focused through a burning-glass, will set wood on fire, and even fuse metals, while the rays of the Moon, concentrated to the strongest power, do not exhibit the very slightest signs of heat. I have myself long thought that the light of the Moon is Electric, but, be that as it may, even a Board School child can perceive that its light is totally unlike that of the Sun.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (151-2)

So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.

“Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its surface reflect the light of the Sun? If her surface was a mass of polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point! Let a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only illuminated. But the Moon’s whole surface is brilliantly illuminated! A condition or effect utterly impossible if it be spherical.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (97)

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:34 pm

Posted by o on 06/13/2015
Since the orbit's upper limit seems to be near to constant, the data reminds me of an inclined rotation plane of the moon, the closest point of the orbit to the north pole being the lowest or vice versa

Here are a few images I have saved, but unfortunately have not taken any notes. They might be the sun, the moon, I have no idea, but they help me think in 3D sometimes.

_ The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 PjmhMWYnvkcX2xrZ4DXZ

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 PjmhMWYnvkcX2xrZ4DXZ

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 B0wgP9idLmF9Q7XRGrFT

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 Hj1Dps5I4jGdL5VkGjs3

These two links give very primitive simulations, but can be tried:

phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html (online)
phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/gravity-and-orbits (needs to be downloaded)

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:35 pm

Posted by storrence on 06/14/2015
I'm not sure the labels on the first image are correct. The moon trails look correct and also show one full moon to the next and how it's doesn't repeat itself in the same place like the sun does. The two large objects on outer ring could be the sun and a dark object that could be responsible for solar and lunar eclipses. The four very large circles could represent the 4 seasons a spiraling object makes through it's path. The small object labeled moon feels right too. The sun is always overtaking the moon as it's speed is about 95% that of the sun. I bet there are clues in other crop circles.
cropcirclesdatabase.com
ccdb.cropcircleresearch.com/index.cgi

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:37 pm

Posted by o on 06/16/2015
Wow!

An astrolabe animation regarding the moon (no clues regarding the spirals):

And an armillary sphere animation of the sun (geocentric model):
I imagined the plane of earth as the flat earth and had to bend my neck 23,5 degrees sometimes, but worked half of the time

Would the second video be of help to your question solosoul? The suns path getting close and away from the north pole on a geocentric globe model. There are some parameters which do not fit to a flat earth model on this video, but gave me a good idea since geocentric animations are rare and I really need animations to easily switch my perception from the learnt heliocentric mode to geocentric mode

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 Cheesy

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:38 pm

Posted by Admin on 06/16/2015
The Sun/Moon both rise and set beyond the horizon, though you may not notice moonrises during daylight until it gets higher in the sky. And I don't know where this talking point about the Moon not being able to be seen during the day on a ball-Earth came about, but this is NOT a proof of the flat Earth and shouldn't be called one as this is to be expected with either model.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:39 pm

Posted by storrence on 06/20/2015

Jun 16, 2015 3:19:13 GMT Admin said:
The Sun/Moon both rise and set beyond the horizon, though you may not notice moonrises during daylight until it gets higher in the sky. And I don't know where this talking point about the Moon not being able to be seen during the day on a ball-Earth came about, but this is NOT a proof of the flat Earth and shouldn't be called one as this is to be expected with either model.

I don't think you would be able to see a full moon in the daytime in a global model. I always have a hard time visualizing things as a ball but in their model, that would mean the moon is on the opposite side of the sun. Not exactly inline or it would be an eclipse but almost so the night side of earth would see a fully lit moon. I don't see how that could happen in the daytime. We should see the dark side of the moon which should be invisible since it's so light out. Am I visualizing this wrong? Their model is completely packed in my mind and harder to visualize than it was when I DID believe in it!

I take that as a good thing

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:41 pm

Posted by Observicus on 06/26/2015
From another perspective, the moon and sun do not need to be any particular shape.

Speculatively, the eternal light and other omnipotent rays and frequencies emitted from the seat of creation travels down through the
aether (and earthe) to contact and power up all celestial bodies according to their individual properties based on their make-up and
specific time and date of birth (including humans) relative to the closest celestial bodies and their individual characteristics as well
as their relative position within the complete matrix of visible and invisible light and energy, with the north pole being an earth focal point.

That being assumed, the energy receptor (sun for example) could simply emanate that light from a minute point central to the body
sending out particular frequencies in rings in all directions, reacting with matter in the environment making them appear as a disc or
sphere (limited circle) within the Aer when in fact they could be a much wider beam of light undetectable to the optical range of man.
Where patterns are fixed on a body such as the moon and do not distort, that could be their allocated properties (program) allowing
them to possess a complex holographic nature whereby a viewer at all points could see the same image regardless of position and angle.
This idea allows for both the translucency and the illumination properties to be effective.

If we could see a greater range of frequencies with the human eye then the sun and moon may well pump out their own brand of rainbow rings.
In fact, if we could see all that exists within the colourful realms of earth, we would possibly
be shocked into death at worst or awe-struck into meandering all day long, watching it happen.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:43 pm

Posted by o on 07/01/2015
Yes, it gets more complicated the more you think about it. The moon should have been our one and only occupation.

I use no programs other than "paint" and I don't think that I will be learning any image or animation programs in the short-term.

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 Undecided

Hope you succeed with you cheetah3D.

Let me share my less-than-amateur drawings:

The sun on a flat earth model travels like a spiral crossing all the red dots in between inner and outer orbit as shown below.

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 VP4GBcWKnRr9G0TZGxnE

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 VP4GBcWKnRr9G0TZGxnE

The rotation of the moon does not seem to be similar to the sun's. The moon's visible orbits on a flat earth model does not seem to have a center point, which might be making sense only if the orbit plane it travels was a diagonal one. (with an angle to the FE ?)

Just to have an idea, I marked down the moon's path parallel to the website's data as of March, June, September and December. And since we do not have an accurate map, the locations where moon was located on the website might be misleading.

I guess in order to complete a whole cycle it needs to be marked down for 13 months until it starts to imitate the previous pattern.
I will be working more on that.

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 TH_8ps31o2d9lLRLueeM

The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 TH_8ps31o2d9lLRLueeM

And the one below is not an x-y-z dimensional drawing but gave me an idea.
The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth - Page 2 UXJxD9ERnruyqu2cBrL7

The full moon is seen when the rising path is the steepest (but closest to the sun in terms of height) and the new moon (or the day it's unvisible) is the most flat one. The analemma timelapse photos confuse me. The top of the analemma, the backpath is when we cannot see the moon (new moon before crescent) You'll see the analemma curving (if I'm not mistaken) on the right side, on top.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:43 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/01/2015
I have cleaned this thread up, so that we can now keep it on track with the fascinating discussion that has been taking place concerning the Moon.

Thanks.

by Thinkforyourself Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:44 pm

Posted by paradigm on 07/08/2015
Amazing new high altitude amateur rocket video, filmed over Nevada, shows the moon when it is over the region of Australia:

by Sponsored content