Is the moon an optical illusion?

+++
The current concept of the moon states that it is a solid spherical object which orbits the Earth every 29.5 days at an average distance of 385,000km and rotates on its axis anti-clockwise (viewed from the northern hemisphere) at 16.7 km/hr or once every 27.32 days.

Earth-Moon2
The Earth/moon distance at the correct proportions according to the current model.

It has to be this distance and speed to match the observable facts of the moon which is that we see certain illuminated portions of the same side every night (and occasionally day).

moon_phases_diagram
The moon in the heliocentric model.

phases-of-the-moon-january-20121
The different phases of the moon over a month.

This alone is an incredible co-incidence. Of course, we already know that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun, so how would the above diagram work with the standard geocentric model? With great difficulty. I’m not sure if it is possible even if the sizes, distances and speeds of the Sun/moon and their movements are absolutely optimized to try and match the observable facts. This is all moot anyway as no bodies can rotate around a completely 100% stationary Earth because it contradicts the center of mass of rotating bodies.

But let’s look at other strange observable pieces of evidence which stand alone from these theories.

+++
Eyewitness anomalies
Video anomalies
Incredible clarity
Reflecting light (chiaroscuro)

+++

Eyewitness anomalies

This is hearsay evidence which is the weakest. Believing a person on a forum on the internet is like believing the “man in the pub”. However, it is worth noting as there are so many of these reports.

There is this comment from an observer on godlikeproductions.com (don’t laugh) on 8th Jan 2012, “I could see it all day yesterday here in Houston. Not a cloud in the sky”, and “I am near Houston too, and have seen it. No clouds either”, and “Yep, I have been seeing it all this past week during the day”. The problem is according to timeanddate.com, at Houston on 7th Jan 2012, the moon rose at 17:22, set at 06:37 and was only one day away from a full moon!

The moon seemed to be out all day and night in Texas on this date, “I live in Oklahoma and I have been pointing this very thing out to people lately… For at least the last week or so, the moon is out ALL the day and still in the sky when I go to bed”

Maybe they are all lying or mistaken. Possibly.

Then there is the disappearing moon problem, “I was outside bout 8pm looked at the moon, then I had a cigarette and looked back and the f****** moon was GONE!!!”

The double moon hallucination, “…in late October, 1995, when I saw something I will never forget. Around 10:00 a.m. I happened to look straight up in the sky and saw the moon. It appeared very large and was about 3/4 full (sorry, I don’t know the proper term). After staring at it for a couple of minutes, it occurred to me that it was in the wrong part of the sky. That’s when I looked southward, towards the horizon and saw it again. I did a double-, triple-, quadruple-take! I couldn’t believe my eyes. I did a comparison and the moons were identical.”

The stationary moon, “Later in the morning at about 0930, I stepped out again and lo and behold, there was the moon again – practically in the same position as it was at 0630 – BUT THREE HOURS LATER.”

The slow-moving moon, “The Moon we saw this morning was towards the West, in the location of 10 o’clock. Which means that in twelve hours the Moon just moved around 90 degrees????”

Sure, these could all be mirages. Are there any harder pieces of evidence? Yes, there are.

+++

Video anomalies

moon infront of clouds1
The moon in front of clouds. Difficult one to explain away. The brightness of the moon overpowers the lighter-colored clouds maybe?

moon infront of clouds2
The moon in front of clouds again. The video camera makes the moon look brighter than it is. Is it really shining through the pale clouds?
pacman moon
The pacman moon. Your guess is as good as mine.

pacman moon1
The pacman moon again. It could be a cloud, but the lines are far too angular.
jumping moon
The jumping moon. Mirage? Reflection? Kundalini force as the author claims?

moon morph
The melting moon. I’ve no idea. Plasma?
flipped moon
The flipped moon. As you have seen at the start of this post, this isn’t supposed to happen period.

vanishing moon
The disappearing moon. Clouds? Possibly.
moon disappearing1
Another disappearing moon. It is hard to blame clouds here.

stripy moon
The stripy moon. Clouds? Really?

+++

Incredible clarity

The moon is supposed to be on average 385,000km distance from us, but the clarity of its picture is sometimes remarkable even to the naked eye. It’s also alleged to be a grey solid rock but its picture does not resemble pictures of other rocks such as mountains. In fact, there is no detail visible on photographs of distant mountains merely 10s of kilometers away.

The moon is more akin to something like microscopic pictures of polished aluminum than it is to a distant stony surface.

Moon60in111707
A close-up of the moon from the Hale telescope.

Polished aliminium mag
A microscopic image of polished aluminum.

+++
The lack of detail of these distant mountains below is nothing like the crisp detail we can see on the moon even with the naked eye:

fullmoon
A full moon showing astounding crisp, clear and detailed features.

keilir-einn
A distant mountain with no details visible.
081013_5
The lack of clarity is astonishing.

smoky-vista_636
These mountains on the horizon can be barely seen at all, let alone any detail.
sun-valley
Despite the snow white contrast, little is seen on the furthest ranges.

65988384
Even this clarity isn’t a patch on the moon some nights.

Big thanks to Simon Shack, the founder of Cluesforum for pointing this out.

+++

Reflecting light (chiaroscuro)

Possibly the biggest anomaly with the moon is the way it reflects light; or rather the way it doesn’t. When a point of light shines on a solid sphere, the light reflecting off the sphere slowly decreases away from the area directly facing the light source.

Half Moon
A typical half-moon not reflecting light as a sphere.

shading
How a sphere reflects light.

The fact that the Sun is not a spotlight doesn’t matter as it is a point of light in the blackness of space and too far away for its light to shine on to the moon’s back surface, at least according to the model du jour.
+++
This means that it is not only the moon that cannot be a sphere, but also the “planets” as well, as they also reflect light in the same way.

mars2
The planet Mars observed through the Hale telescope not reflecting light as a sphere should.

uranus06
The planet Uranus observed through the Hale telescope not shining like a solid sphere.

This would agree with the heliocentrists’ point that there can be no retrograde planetary motion in a geocentric universe. This is because planets are NOT solid spheres moving around anything. In fact, because the moon is likely to be an optical illusion of some kind and that the “planets” are also seen with the same light reflection as the moon, it follows by characteristic association that the “planets” are also probably optical illusions.

They could be disks or maybe bowls? I don’t know what shape they are, but it is further evidence that they are not real, but some kind of projection instead. A projection of what? No idea.

There is evidence of something even stranger in the sky. More on that in the next post.

+++

Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to Is the moon an optical illusion?

  1. SPACE says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana

    in 1946 to bounce radar signals off the Moon

    It was the first demonstration that terrestrial radio signals could penetrate the ionosphere.

    View Comment
  2. frank says:

    Im new at this and this may be a silly question.
    Tonight theres almost a ull moon.
    My question is say the Moon is directly over the equator,the sun has set in about the west northwest.( im in the southern hemisphere).
    How can i see a full moon when im looking north?
    At the same time some one in the northern hemisphere is looking south and can see a full moon?.
    Does that mean that the whole moon has sun light on it?.(no dark side)
    Im i missing something.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The moon will be in the northern sky (from Australia for example), but probably slightly lower than where the Sun was as we are past the equinox by about a month and the sun is pointing slightly north of the equator, therefore the moon is pointing slightly south of the equator during a full moon I think (opposite side to the sun).

      View Comment
  3. Tom says:

    Chang 3 mission. Yutu rover photos. Add brightness to dark sky and anomalies will occur.

    http://oi67.tinypic.com/24xgt42.jpg
    http://oi65.tinypic.com/qprurb.jpg

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Tom. All these mars landing stuff and other crap is complete BS from the top down. Simply because it is impossible. They have to fake what isn’t a reality and so therefore is impossible. We can boil it down quite nicely. There are three things they keep either faking or not showing.

      1. Ball earth. No pictures of earth from space. All composites with the odd fake.
      2. Zero gravity. Clear evidence of faking zero gravity.
      3. Silly and faked mars rover pics (squirrels on mars), video bases in the Arctic circle, candy wrappers on mars, ridiculous press conferences where nobody knows anything about their own project etc.

      What can we conclude from that? We can conclude that those three things are impossible to do and so they fake it. They are impossible to do because;

      1. The earth is concave.
      2. There is slightly stronger gravity in space.
      3. Planets are tiny, near the Sun and electric.

      View Comment
  4. Donald Sarty says:

    The moon is self-luminous, or shines with her own light, independently

    The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon’s rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

    “It is said that the moon has a pernicious effect upon those who, in the East, sleep in its beams; and that fish having been exposed to them for only one night, becomes most injurious to those who eat it.” 1

    “At Peckham Rye, a boy named Lowry has entirely lost his sight by sleeping in a field in the bright moonlight.” 2

    “If we place in an exposed position two pieces of meat, and one of them be subjected to the moon’s rays, while the other is

    p. 142

    protected from them by a screen or a cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the other.” 1

    Professor Tyndall describing his journey to the summit of the Alpine Mountain, Weisshorn, August 21st, 1861, says:–

    “I lay with my face towards the moon (which was nearly full), and gazed until my face and eyes became so chilled that I was fain to protect them with a handkerchief.” 2

    3rd. It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

    It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed.

    4th. In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

    5th. In winter when ice and snow are on the ground, it is patent to every boy seeking amusement by skating or snow-balling, that in the sun light both ice and snow are softer and sooner thaw than that behind a wall, or in the shade. It is equally well known that when, in frosty weather, the night is far advanced, and the full moon has been shining for some hours, the snow and ice exposed to the moon-light are hard and crisp, while in the shade, or behind any object which intercepts the moon’s rays it is warmer, and the ice and snow are softer and less compact. Snow will melt sooner in sun-light than in the shade; but sooner in the shade than when exposed to the light of the moon.

    6th. The light of the sun reflected from the surface of a pool of water, or from the surface of ice, may be collected in a large lens, and thrown to a point or focus, when the heat will be found to be considerable; but neither from the light of the moon reflected in a similar way, nor direct from the moon itself, can a heat-giving focus be obtained.

    7th. 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. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:—

    “If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair’s breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment.” 1

    “This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon.” 2

    “The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied by a coloured fluid. In this instrument, when caloric is absorbed by it, the black ball takes up more than the other, and the air it encloses increasing in elasticity, the liquid is driven out. This instrument is so delicate that it indicates even the millionth part of a degree; and yet, in the experiment alluded to, it gave no result.” 1

    “The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times. Professor Forbes concentrated the moon’s light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced.” 2

    In the “Lancet” (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon’s rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

    It is the common experience of the world that the light of the sun heats and invigorates all things, and that moon light is cold and depressive. Among the Hindoos, the sun is called “Nidâghakara,” which means in Sanscrit “Creator of Heat;” and the moon is called “Sitala Hima,” “The Cold,” and “Himân’su,” “Cold-darting,” or “Cold-radiating.”

    Poets, who but utter in measured words the universal knowledge of mankind, always speak of the “Pale cold moon,” and the expression is not only poetically beautiful, but also true philosophically.

    “The cold chaste moon, the queen of Heaven’s bright Isles;
    Who makes all beautiful on which she smiles:
    That wandering shrine of soft yet icy flame
    Which ever is transformed, yet still the same;
    And warms not but illumes.”

    The facts now placed in contrast make it impossible to conclude otherwise than that the moon does not shine by reflection, but by a light peculiar to herself–that she is in short self-luminous. This conclusion is confirmed by the following consideration. The moon is said by the Newtonian philosophers to be a sphere. If so, its surface could not possibly reflect; a reflector must be concave or plane, so that the rays of light may have an “angle of incidence.” If the surface is convex, every ray of light falls upon it in a line direct with radius, or perpendicular to the surface. Hence there cannot be an angle of incidence and therefore none of reflection. If the moon’s surface were a mass of highly polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point. Let a silvered glass ball 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 only be a very small portion illuminated. But during full moon the whole disc shines intensely, an effect which from a spherical surface is impossible. If the surface of the moon were opaque and earthy instead of polished like a mirror, it might be seen simply illuminated like a dead wall, or the face of a distant sandstone rock, or chalky cliff, but it could not shine intensely from every part, radiating brilliant light and brightly illuminating the objects around it, as the moon does so beautifully when full and in a clear firmament. If the earth were admitted to be globular, and to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the sun’s light, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur thereby, unless, at the same time, the moon is proved to be non-luminous, and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only assumed as an essential part of a theory. The contrary is capable of proof. That the moon is self-luminous, or shines with her own light, independently. The very name and the nature of a reflector demand certain well-defined conditions. The moon does not manifest these necessary conditions, and therefore it must be concluded, of necessity, that she is not a reflector, but a self-luminous body. That she shines with her own light independently of the sun, thus admits of direct demonstration.

    As the moon is self-luminous, her surface could not be darkened or “eclipsed” by a shadow of the earth–supposing such a shadow could be thrown upon it. In such a case, the luminosity instead of being diminished, would increase, and would be greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the shadow. As the light in a bull’s-eye lantern looks brightest in the darkest places, so would the self-shining surface of the moon be most intense in the umbra or deepest part of the earth’s shadow.

    The moon shining brightly during the whole time of eclipse, and with a light of different hue to that of the sun; and the light of the moon having, as previously shown, a different character to that of the sun; the earth not a globe, and not in motion round the sun, but sun and moon always over the earth’s plane surface, render the proposition unavoidable as it is clearly undeniable that a lunar eclipse does not and could not in the nature of things arise from a shadow of the earth, but must of sheer logical necessity be referred to some other cause.

    We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon’s self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this “something” is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause–a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon’s surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.

    That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth’s surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:–

    “We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth.”

    In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,–

    “There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth.”

    Sir John Herschel admits that:–

    “Invisible moons exist in the firmament.” 1

    Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods, &c. 2

    At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1850, the president stated that,—

    “The opinion was gaining ground, that many of the fixed stars were accompanied by companions emitting no light.”

    “The ‘changeable stars’ which disappear for a time, or are eclipsed, have been supposed to have very large opaque bodies revolving about or near to them, so as to obscure them when they come in conjunction with us.” 3

    “Bessel, the greatest astronomer of our time, in a letter to myself, in July 1844, said, ‘I do indeed continue in the belief that Procyon and Sirius are both true double stars, each consisting of one visible, and one invisible star.’ . . A laborious inquiry just completed by Peters at Königsberg; and a similar one by Schubert, the calculator employed on the North American Nautical Almanack, support Bessel.” 1

    “The belief in the existence of non-luminous stars was prevalent in Grecian antiquity, and especially in the early times of Christianity. It was assumed that ‘among the fiery stars which are nourished by vapours, there move other earthy bodies, which remain invisible to us!’ Origenes.” 2

    “Stars that are invisible and consequently have no name move in space together with those that are visible.” Diogenes of Appollonica. 3

    Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of “dark cosmical bodies of great size.” 4

    We have now seen that the existence of dark bodies revolving about the luminous objects in the firmament has been admitted by practical observers from the earliest ages; and that in our own day such a mass of evidence has accumulated on the subject, that astronomers are compelled to admit that not only dark bodies which occasionally obscure the luminous stars when in conjunction, but that cosmical bodies of large size exist, and that “one at least is attached as a satellite to this earth.” It is this dark or “non-luminous satellite,” which when in conjunction, or in a line with the moon and an observer on earth, IS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF A LUNAR ECLIPSE.

    Those who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating eclipses and other phenomena, are prone to look upon the correctness of such calculations as powerful arguments in favour of the doctrine of the earth’s rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy, generally. One of the most pitiful manifestations of ignorance of the true nature of theoretical astronomy is the ardent inquiry so often made, “How is it possible for that system to be false, which enables its professors to calculate to a second of time both solar and lunar eclipses for hundreds of years to come?” The supposition that such calculations are an essential part of the Newtonian or any other theory is entirely gratuitous, and exceedingly fallacious and misleading. Whatever theory is adopted, or if all theories are discarded, the same calculations can be made. The tables of the moon’s relative positions for any fraction of time are purely practical–the result of long-continued observations, and may or may not be connected with hypothesis. The necessary data being tabulated, may be mixed up with any, even the most opposite doctrines, or kept distinct from every theory or system, just as the operator may determine.

    “The considered defects of the system of Ptolemy (who lived in the second century of the Christian era), did not prevent him from calculating all the eclipses that were to happen for 600 years to come.” 1

    “The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon’s mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their ‘Saros,’ or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur.” 1

    “Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War.” 2

    “Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come.” 3

    “The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.” 4

    “No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory.” 5

    “It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon’s motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction.” 1

    The simplest method of ascertaining any future eclipse is to take the tables which have been formed during hundreds of years of careful observation; or each observer may form his own tables by collecting a number of old almanacks one for each of the last forty years: separate the times of the eclipses in each year, and arrange them in a tabular form. On looking over the various items he will soon discover parallel cases, or “cycles” of eclipses; that is, taking the eclipses in the first year of his table, and examining those of each succeeding year, he will notice peculiarities in each year’s phenomena; but on arriving to the items of the nineteenth and twentieth years, he will perceive that some of the eclipses in the earlier part of the table will have been now repeated–that is to say, the times and characters will be alike. If the time which has elapsed between these two parallel or similar eclipses be carefully noted, and called a “cycle,” it will then be a very simple and easy matter to predict any future similar eclipse, because, at the end of the “cycle,” such similar eclipse will be certain to occur; or, at least, because such repetitions of similar phenomena have occurred in every cycle of between eighteen and nineteen years during the last several thousand years, it may be reasonably expected that if the natural world continues to have the same general structure and character, such repetitions may be predicted for all future time. The whole process is neither more nor less–except a little more complicated–than that because an express train had been observed for many years to pass a given point at a given second–say of every eighteenth day, so at a similar moment of every cycle or eighteenth day, for a hundred or more years to. come, the same might be predicted and expected. To tell the actual day and second, it is only necessary to ascertain on what day of the week the eighteenth or “cycle day” falls.

    Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

    View Comment
  5. JMAC1978 says:

    just thought of something WH. and you may have something like it already. there should be info on the moon and its exact location each day from the last few years. maybe using that info can help with your theory on how the moon works? you might be able to plot the moons location and somehow work that into the theory. im assuming there is something out there? I know they have something that shows the PLANETS and where they are.. so maybe if there is something on the moon and its location thru each day might help? just a thought…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Stellarium. I have it, but haven’t installed it yet. I’ll definitely use both the software and observation when the time comes to write up about it. In the meantime, I’ve read that the moon follows the sun’s +/-23.4 degree ecliptic path with sometimes an extra +/-5 degrees. And also that during the winter the moon is generally high and during the summer it is low. Why? Because as the sunlight reflects around itself, it will shine in the opposite direction the front is facing. The secondary factor is that because the reflection moves with the positive current flow around the Sun, it will move slightly up or down with this current flow (sunspots tend to move up or down or not at all at different times of the year – sources sometimes contradict themselves though in this regard, so that is trickier I’ve found).

      View Comment
      • JMAC1978 says:

        i just installed Stellarium 2 weeks ago. And I had 2 good viewing days of the Moon. Jan 20, 21st (4pm-8pm as it was rising). I too will be watching as much as I can. question?? as I have no idea until I watch the FULL MOONS this year.. do you think that on a full moon that the SUN and MOON are directly opposite each other as their Center point passes thru the center of the Celestial sphere? So I see the Sun set in the south west and full moon is north east. from what I remember in the Summer the Sun set in the West and the Full moon was directly East.. and as Summer went on the Sun would set Northwest and Moon would be more Southeast.

        also, as it rises it looks transparent or basically like you can see the sky blue behind the moon until it reaches 40degrees above the horizon… I get the same image when using my kids projector on the wall. if you are farther away the image is distorted and you can see behind it (all the color is not visible). but if you move in close to the wall the image is crisp and you only see the image and its hard to see behind it…

        keep up the good work..

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          That’s right Mac. As far as I can remember from my location in the winter the Sun rose and set in an arc south-east to south-west. The arc gets bigger, higher and broadens along the horizon till the summer where it rises and sets north-east to north-west.

          On the equinoxes the sun should roughly move directly east to west, and the moon too. The 100% full moon should rise as the sun sets on these two dates. The only difference between them in my new theory is the angle of plasmasphere rotation, so the moon won’t be absolutely exactly the same as the sun. There is also the consideration of light bending less at night.

          As the reflection moves around the Sun I don’t know how quickly it takes for the reflection (moon) to move in the exact opposite ecliptic line as the facing Sun (give or take the extra angle of plasmasphere rotation). I’ve had a few cloudy days here and it is raining right now. it could be that it is only the 100% full moon that achieves this. Or full opposite line could be achieved by a half or even a quarter moon.

          At the moment I am checking stellarium for highest and lowest elevation angles of planets in the sky starting with Jupiter. I am pretty sure I know the rough make up of the tiny cosmos and what is happening.

          For eclipses, I saw a video by Distinti on the MM experiment and the aether and he mentions at 3:30 secs that if two light waves arrive at the same time (in phase) the light reflection will be illuminated – constructive interference. If one of the waves is late or early (out of phase) by 180 degrees, a dark spot occurs. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bj4wUPegxM

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I wonder about the transparent moon image. Could it be the bend of light causing this effect. Light at the horizon has a long bend and has the furthest to go from the moon as opposed to directly above us.

            Good clue. Must make a mental note of that.

            View Comment
          • JMAC1978 says:

            hmmm only planets I see not following the somewhat path of the sun and moon is Uranus and Neptune.. they are pretty far off. actually Uranus I think is still close to the suns path but maybe I see it just above the Suns path (higher in sky), but the other 4 seem to follow the path between the Sun and Moon.. this is just from my eyes alone.. I haven’t even looked at Stellarium. i could be wrong too. as i don’t see the planets after 745am. the 5 are visible from 630am-730am here in Columbus Ohio and are usually seen in the somewhat path of the sun.. anything i can do to help… just email me

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            S0 far I am following Jupiter. I have its high point in the sky (5th Jan 2016) and low point (6th May 2016). I’ll continue to do a couple more. Planets tend to follow the sidereal day (star rotational speed) apart from when they go retrograde. I think the latter is due to the magnetic sun/moon getting close. So far my idea is that planets are just aggregated plasma which has come off evaporated stars (due to being directly in front of the Sun the entire time). Plasma (ionized gas) is or can be magnetic and so they operate the same as the sun, just much less magnetic and much smaller (obviously). Stars are just bits of the sun that have come off due to electrical surges (sames as asteroids) that have got trapped around the innermost eye of the magnetic vortex of the earth cavity. This eye does not allow very weak reflected light through it (as I speculated with polar satellites), but of course allows the blaring powerful sunlight to easily shine through. Both the stars/planets and sun (sun could be 600m diameter only perhaps) are very small and very near the center but are magnified (a bit like this – https://duckduckgo.com/?q=star+light+projector&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=images). The magnification comes from the glass and small amount of water/ice on top of the glass at 100km high. The further away the object is away from the converging lens (water) the larger the magnification. You can test this by putting a pen in a glass of water and move the pen near and far from you. Magnification increases the light and heat visible and felt (see magnifying glass).

            That is my “story” so far.

            EDIT: Made a mistake with one of the dates: The low point of Jupiter is on 3rd Feb 2017, and the high point was on 6th May 2016. It has a nine month cycle from top to bottom (the sun has a 6 month one). Jupiter moves 8 degrees above the ecliptic (equator line) and 8 degrees below it in those 9 months. It is basically a mini Sun just much smaller and less magnetic. It moves with the stars (sidereal day). It stays a long time at both its high and low points in the sky over those weeks (just like the sun does). It basically moves exactly the same as the Sun, but is weaker magnetically and moves with the stars (slightly closer to the centre). The only difference is that there are two small time frames at opposite ends of its cycle where Jupiter should move quickly like the Sun but slows down instead. I would guess this is the retrograde movement and is caused by the close proximity of the actual sun during these two times (I will have to look into this more).

            WH

            View Comment
          • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

            The TV series ‘Under The Dome’ had a hint about stars being magnified projections from the center of a ‘mini dome’. This is from a music video with clips taken from the show. Go to 1:29:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s72Mdwzei7c

            Loving your Moon, stars and planets updates, WH, your ‘theory’ is making more sense everyday.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Quick EDIT: Made a mistake with one of the dates: The low point of Jupiter is on 3rd Feb 2017, and the high point was on 6th May 2016. It has a nine month cycle from top to bottom (the sun has a 6 month one). Jupiter moves 8 degrees above the ecliptic (equator line) and 8 degrees below it in those 9 months. It is basically a mini Sun just much smaller and less magnetic. It moves with the stars (sidereal day). It stays a long time at both its high and low points in the sky over those weeks (just like the sun does). It basically moves exactly the same as the Sun, but is weaker magnetically and moves with the stars (slightly closer to the centre). The only difference is that there are two small time frames at opposite ends of its cycle where Jupiter should move quickly like the Sun but slows down instead. I would guess this is the retrograde movement and is caused by the close proximity of the actual sun during these two times (I will have to look into this more).

            View Comment
  6. Donald Sarty says:

    Is The Moon A Hologram?
    You are credited on Alltime Conspiracies WH 😉
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEcJyjkYD4
    BIG hits on this

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Lol.

      I actually use the term “optical illusion” which is different. I think the moon is the back of the Sun, but what we see is highly distorted in the electrical Earth cavity looking through glass. So in that sense it is an optical illusion in a way, but it still is a reflection of something real (the back of the Sun).

      I videoed the moon again last night. I got a clear sky. This time the cresent quarter moon was facing the other way towards the ground to the West. It was moving in the exact same parabolic arc and height from the ground that the Sun goes at this time of year. I didn’t have time to get the moon setting (probably set at around 8pm), but I saw it at 6:30pm and filmed it at 7:05 to about 7:30pm. It clearly moves to the West and downwards towards the ground in a south west direction. It was close to setting.

      So far I have two proofs the moon follows the path of the Sun for that time of year. if it is not cloudy later today (it is right now) I will film the Sun to show that it will take the same path today as the moon did yesterday.

      So far we have;
      1. Moon follows the same path as the sun.
      2. Moon is (by and large) the same size as the sun.
      3. Only the front side of the moon is ever seen, except in that terrible fake cgi NASA footage.
      4. The moon shines reflected light not like a sphere but a bowl.

      Those are four huge indicators that the moon is really the back of the sun. I’ll keep getting sun and moon paths this year to see if the moon really does always follow the path of the sun at that time of year.

      Also interesting, like Dani found out, the moon’s total disc shape is seen but it is in shadow, and the crescent is bright. All on video. I’ll keep filming and get a collection going before publishing any footage.

      WH

      Edit (14/01/2016): Captured the moon again last night. It was traveling in a much higher arc than the night before. It still travels in the same arc as the Sun does, just higher for this time of year. It moved like the Sun would in very approximately 8 weeks (at least, or more) time. I’ll capture the Sun arc today and compare between the two moon arcs.

      Also interesting, I captured the moon setting on an elevated but invisible horizon line last night. At first I thought it could be a cloud, but on looking back at the footage, the line looks too straight. I remember someone else capturing this as well on Youtube. I’ll see if this happens again. The disappearing elevation was very roughly the same elevation as this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HidFcm6VAa8

      The only difference is that is was between 8:30 and 9pm and beautiful clear sky with lots of stars everywhere (unusual for Ireland).

      View Comment
  7. SPACE says:

    Just wanted to tell about moon appearance. It happened last year, on October 30. On previous day (29) I noticed, that on 08.08 p.m. moon is visible (it was full moon week, moon was kinda yellowish). It was 08.00 p.m. I looked through the window, east, south-east, moon was not visible. Then I went to smoke to another room, so it’s about 2 min. Returned – look through window – babah – moon fully visible. At first I thought, that moon rised, but my house is on hill and hill goes further towards east, south-east (where moon was). So on sea level it was good 30 degrees. Moon definitely appeared out of nowhere. Maybe it was catched by someone on video, but I got evidence with my own eyes.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m on it Space. I very nearly caught the moon disappearing on video at 6400 ISO yesterday morning at 8:55AM, but a cloud traveled over it at the last minute and 3 minutes later when the cloud had past I couldn’t see the moon anywhere. 🙁 It was a very thin crescent moon. Today, there was no moon (I assume because it was in its New Moon phase). Maybe tomorrow morning.

      The position of the moon at 8:30 AM was about 20 degrees away (very approx) from the rising Sun in the southern sky (Sun was rising from south-east, crescent moon was further towards the south). The Sun hadn’t risen yet, but you could see its light breaking out from under the horizon. The moon was traveling slowly East to West like the Sun and it was following the exact same path the Sun makes in the sky at this time of year. The same circular path and height from the ground as the Sun makes as I followed the moon for about half an hour at x60 magnification with the camera on a tripod. The Sun was just past the moon’s last position at around 11:30AM I think, at about the same height from the ground (forgotten the proper word for it). I videoed that too at 100 ISO so I could capture the Sun without a whiteout. The correct time and date is set on my camera so I can check it later for exact times.

      I want to record the moon each day now and see how it behaves. I’m determined to get a moon fade out, as clearly that is what it does. I’d love to get an appearance too on video.

      I’ll also be checking the horizon soon over 6.5 km distance over a lake with an offical x132 magnification (probably really x125).

      Look at this:
      http://www.calendar-365.com/moon/moon-phases.html

      New Moon should be tomorrow, not today (8th Jan 2016). There was definitely no moon visible this morning at any rate.

      View Comment
      • SPACE says:

        As I know, Moon always appear to the right of the Sun. But now it’s winter and in northern hemisphere Sun appears in south only for several hours. Interesting, what will be Moon path.
        It’s good, that you have video camera. Especially take notice of last Moon phase, when Moon starts diminish, then it’s movement is most anomalous. Sometimes it hangs whole night in one place, sometimes moves backward. It contradicts heliocentric and current astrophysics postulates.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Interesting. Do you know why I think it hangs in one place or even sometimes moves backwards? I reckon it could be because light very occasionally increases its bend at night so the moon progresses more slowly East to West or even stops and reverses. Someone claims to have witnessed the Sun do this once, a few years ago – http://www.wildheretic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82 Also, I can’t find it now, but I’ve read a few comments on youtube and elsewhere where the near full moon was witnessed to remain in the same position for several hours (about 4 rs I think it was) during one night.

          I’m thinking in my head about the different phases and a theory for them. What we really need is real data. That is why I hope to get enough recorded evidence of the moon this year to gives us some clues as to what is actually happening in the concave Earth. When the moon is appearing and how. What phase it is and what path it takes and how long it is visible. I won’t get all this info, but I might get enough to cobble together a theory.

          Especially take notice of last Moon phase, when Moon starts diminish, then its movement is most anomalous.

          Interesting. I was theorizing myself about the last quarter moon. The most important thing I noticed on Thursday was that the visible part of the moon was facing East towards the rising Sun as if the Sun was shining on that part of the moon. Friday was a new moon (even though it was a day early). Saturday and today were overcast (It’s Ireland, so quite a common occurrence). Maybe tomorrow morning will be better.

          I have no idea where the moon will be when it starts to get full, but I noticed a few times that a full moon appears a couple of hours before dusk and rises at the same speed and time as the Sun sets in the opposite side of the sky.

          View Comment
  8. BlueMoon says:

    Your comparison to distant mountains on earth only proves that the moon is not in the atmosphere.
    And you would see sphere shading on the moon and planets if they had a gloss finish, but they do not. The moon is a mild retroreflector, which is why it’s brighter than expected when full. I don’t suppose your theory explains that phenomenon. We also left retroreflectors on the moon, which are frequently used to measure the moon’s distance.
    It is merely a coincidence that the craters on the moon happen to vaguely resemble the microscopic pockmarks on aluminum. What is not a coincidence is that the moon is tidally locked with Earth. And even though it is tidally locked, it still librates, clearly demonstrating its spherical nature and the nature of its orbit.
    As for the “melting moon,” it is obviously being obscured by something, perhaps clouds or leaves. And those pictures that show the moon “in front of” the clouds is obviously showing it behind them. I mean, have you ever gone outside on a night like that and looked at the moon?
    Furthermore, how do you account for the tides? They line up with the moon and, to a lesser but noticeable extent, the sun.
    You fail to take eclipses into account, as well as many related observations. Among these are annular eclipses, the sun’s corona, and how umbra and penumbra fall on the moon during a lunar eclipse and the earth during a solar eclipse. If the moon is a separate body within a concave earth, then during the day, there should always be a solar eclipse somewhere on earth.
    You think about that, while I go disprove your assumptions about heliocentric theory.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      It’s an early speculative article.

      We also left retroreflectors on the moon, which are frequently used to measure the moon’s distance.

      No, they bounce light off the moon, not the “retroreflectors”. That’s an old moon landing shill argument. Who do you work for bluemoon?

      What is not a coincidence is that the moon is tidally locked with Earth.

      Relies on heliocentric theory being true which it isn’t. Shall we talk about that theory or do you want me to talk about concave theory?

      Furthermore, how do you account for the tides? They line up with the moon and, to a lesser but noticeable extent, the sun.

      An extremely complicated subject. Nobody on the internet can figure tides out it seems, so I will leave that subject for now rather than throw out a few ideas. I would have to look at a LOT of data, and I mean a LOT which isn’t easy to get hold of. The first thing I would do it look at ocean tides on the many shorelines of the continents at different latitudes and see if they could line up with the sun and moon because in my current theory, the moon is the back of the sun and it is the sun that creates gravity pressure on the concave earth. That subject is too vast for a throwaway “debate” comment.

      You fail to take eclipses into account, as well as many related observations. Among these are annular eclipses, the sun’s corona, and how umbra and penumbra fall on the moon during a lunar eclipse and the earth during a solar eclipse. If the moon is a separate body within a concave earth, then during the day, there should always be a solar eclipse somewhere on earth.

      No shit. If you want to find out the truth then research takes a lot of time. I think I have done exceptionally well in the 2 years I’ve had to think and research things part time. The professionals have had centuries to try and figure things out and they still are amazed and dumbfounded with new data. So much so, they keep having to invent new bullshit to keep their centuries old theory alive. Drop your religious theories and embrace the light. Do an experiment for a change.

      View Comment
      • Wise One says:

        Tides are caused by the EM energy of the sun. It’s also the reason for waves. Here’s a good video to watch. Mute the music though, it’s repetitive and distracting.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pauQitNEM0

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, it could well be. I think it is also a good candidate for gravity (not to be mistaken for magnetic polarity attraction and repulsion), but a general pressure from the overall mag field of the Sun.

          It’s funny because I was going to say to test this theory, you would have to see if there is a day/night variation in high/low tides. The video states there are. So yes, the EM field of the sun/moon would be my first port of call to research.

          Here is a comment:
          “So how does it explain the fact that their are two high and low tides either side of the Earth at the same time?”

          If this is true, then Don’s glass rotation/oscillation model looks better to me. I must look into that as well at some time.

          View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Haha. No it isn’t real. This was discussed briefly at the time. Does that animation look real to you? The satellite is not 1 million miles away.

      View Comment
      • Vincent BADAULT says:

        Dear Sir,

        What is your opinion concerning the new website launched by nasa showcasing daily images of Earth captured from a satellite ? http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

        Regards,

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Too late. The horse has bolted. Having said that, it can join that very rare and illustrious one picture club with the 1990 Galileo satellite and the 1972 Apollo 17 mission.

          Vincent, here is my initial analysis:

          1. Why 13 “photos”? Why not HD video? Why is there no video of a rotating Earth from space? Should be very, very easy to accomplish and great for marketing purposes of the heliocentric model, no?

          2. You will see that the “photo” of the Americas (no. 10 http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/) is identical to GOES-13 image of the same. Identical in size and “curve”. This shows that NOAA are using the exact same technique in terms of horizon limitation and likely scanning technique. That picture does not show a globe: it reaches +75 and -75 degree latitude thereabouts.

          This is laughable – “Since Earth is extremely bright in the darkness of space, EPIC has to take very short exposure images (20-100 milliseconds). The much fainter stars are not visible in the background as a result of the short exposure times.” No. The reason there are no stars is because they can’t take a full “globe” image of the Earth – it only reaches +/-75 degrees latitude. http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

          3. If the other images are real, and the Earth does not rotate, how do they take the other pictures? If what they say is true, in a concave Earth they must have several satellites positioned around the longitudinal points of the equator (geostationary satellite). You can see an indication for this because they are missing an area between the Pacific and Australia. The “rotation” skips at this point. If shouldn’t skip if the camera is taking shots of the Earth every couple of hours, but it would skip if there isn’t a DISCOVR satellite positioned on the glass at that longitudinal point to scan the composite image and relay it to Earth. Why isn’t there a satellite at that part of the Pacific? Because there is no country there of note that needs satellite weather imagery… a satellite is expensive to put up there (obviously) – http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

          Also, they never mention the DISCOVR satellite per say. They call it the “Deep Space Climate Observatory”, and “Once a day NASA will post at least a dozen new color images of Earth acquired from 12 to 36 hours earlier by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC).” and “The primary objective of NOAA’s DSCOVR mission…” and “NASA has two Earth-observing instruments on the spacecraft.” No mention of a satellite, or how many spacecraft at all. In other words they don’t have to lie about this, just omit.

          View Comment
      • wise one says:

        http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/sep/20/rotating-moon-space-nasa-video

        I believe there is a longer video of this on YouTube. As you watch it, it changes from convex to concave as if you are looking INTO it.

        View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        Of course it’s real. The satellite is at L1. That is the actual color and size of the moon. And don’t say the satellite is fake due to the thermosphere because it’s far, far outside the limits of the thermosphere. And we’ve discussed this. Satellites are not at risk of melting due to the thermosphere, because that’s not how heat works.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          My latest theory is that the moon is the back of the Sun. The image we see that is the moon may be a reflection or distortion however.

          And we’ve discussed this. Satellites are not at risk of melting due to the thermosphere, because that’s not how heat works.

          Utter rubbish. Tell me how heat works. There is now no argument as I have addressed them all in the article and there is even experimental proof. The earth is concave as well, too much to say here.

          Look “bluemoon” why are you regurgitating old shite that relies on heliocentric theory being true when the earth is concave. I know you don’t like experiments and verification and prefer “debate” for some odd reason, but there really is no point discussing any of this without you testing the earth with a laser. This isn’t a creationist/evolution debate and you aren’t Dickie Dawkins. The concave earth can be tested. Debate is truly pointless. I know you won’t test it because most of the mainstream space agency marketing lies will come tumbling down for the lies that they are and a lot of their power will be gone.

          View Comment
    • Glare says:

      Can’t you tell? Does it look real to you?

      View Comment
  9. wise one says:

    The moon might be an Xray of the sun.

    View Comment
  10. Miriam says:

    Hi WH,
    Due to your website content I’ve become more fine tuned at watching the moon.
    Down in Italy this August we, a group of five, used to have dinner at the beach and one night a red moon ‘rose’. The next night it rose at approx. the same spot and also at approx. the same time. The following night however it was nowhere to be seen anymore (?!). I called that out and we were all puzzled, to say the least. We contemplated, that according to the mainstream science the moon should have risen either a bit later/earlier or at least change its position in comparison to the night before. For the rest of our vacation it seemed the moon appeared pretty much whenever it wanted to. Just wanted to share that and see what your take is on that. Absolutely stunning, your site. Thanx.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Were there any clouds in the sky that night when the moon couldn’t be seen?

      My wife got me up to see the blood moon the night before last at around 4am. Its shape looked exactly like a crescent moon, but a bit larger and brighter than normal. You could see the shadow circle on top of the moon, like these pictures: http://welcome-to-concave-earth-forum.70389.x6.nabble.com/Moon-Observations-td566.html.

      The only real difference was that the shadow circle was not 100% dark like a usual crescent moon, but most of it was a translucent shadow revealing or filtering the moon underneath in a reddy brown colour. You had a bright white crescent on one side, a dark deep crescent shadow on the other and in between was reddy brown.

      I saw the moon last night too in a yellowish light. It was a full moon and extremely bright and a bit larger than normal. I noticed that the shape of the moon wasn’t a perfect circle. (Observation between 10pm and 11pm). It was slightly irregular-shaped (a bit like a polygon) as if chips or chunks had been taken away from some of the sides. The lower left side was especially angular. The funny thing is I have noticed this issue before with other full moons on occasion. I can’t say I have noticed this with every full moon as I wasn’t looking at them.I don’t think clouds were causing this issue (there were lots of wispy clouds there) as both myself and my wife stared at the moon periodically for a long time (10 to 11pm).

      WH

      View Comment
  11. Danny says:

    Hi Wild Heretic, I love your work. With the September 27 2015 Supermoon Lunar Eclipse coming up, I was wondering what is your explanation of this phenomena? Thanks

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Is that the blood moon phenomenon? To be honest I haven’t thought too much about moon phases and blood moons and solar eclipses. Steve shows a representation of a dark circle passing over the moon in one direction over 28 days accounting for its phases. The question is what is this shadow – the Gegenschein effect? Probably, but that needs to be taken a step further in terms of the hows and whys for my liking. I can’t do that at the moment. I hope to explain it better in the future.

      Could the blood moons and solar eclipses be interference from reflected light from the back of the sun at certain times of a cycle? Maybe.

      WH

      View Comment
  12. SPACE says:

    @WH, it appears like after eclipse. For the lack of term, I call it veil.
    Like car lamps, when emitting light, they look like disk, when darkened, they more look like spheroid. If you look at any Moon picture, there on lower right corner is dot and from it goes lines. I often called Moon basketball ball.
    I don’t agree, that Moon is the back of the Sun, because of how Moon appears at day. It always appears at the same angle and follows Sun. Angle is about 110 degrees, from eye determination and never changes.

    View Comment
  13. B.Mueller says:

    If you watch mountains your view is reduced depending on air conditions. You’re watching through dense atmosphere for the entire distance. If you watch at the moon, the dense part of the atmosphere is pretty short. The air gets thinner and thinner. At Mount Everest, which is some 8km high, there is already almost not enough air to breath. That’s why on clear nights you can see the moon so clear. How do you explain this using your flat earth theory? Why can’t you see the mountains far away if the earth is flat?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t believe in flat earth. The earth is concave. Keep reading the blog and you’ll soon see.

      View Comment
      • sully says:

        WH,
        I didn’t know where i might post this appropriately, and couldn’t find an email address for you, so I’m just sticking it in here.

        I realize this is trying to be a scientific and not religious forum. But I often find that Scripture contains great truth, and can tell us a lot.

        I have been studying heavenly objects from a biblical perspective for some time. I was thinking along the lines of spiritual principles and biblical symbology. But there is usually a real world relationship to such things. (Actually, the other way around… physical creation designed as a teaching model, if you will.) This may or may not shed some useful light, but I thought I’d throw these into the mix… maybe it will stimulate some new ideas, fwiw:

        SUN = Gold (metal) = Life/alive, warmth, source, Father, center, Male

        MOON = Silver (metal) = Death/dead, cold, sacrifice, Son, attached to Earth

        EARTH= Clay, blood, life, Female, womb, garden

        STARS = “Mini” suns; duplicates of Sun, same nature but much smaller

        CLOUDS = Spirit (aether?) Angels

        There is much more, but these seemed like they might be relevant and hopefully of some use.

        Sully

        View Comment
      • B.Mueller says:

        did you ever watched the planet Jupiter? It takes about 15 min to see the big red spot to significantly change position. Then there are the moons also visibly moving around. Or take sun spots. They also change position during the day. It’s not that difficult to observe such movement in reality.

        View Comment
    • Mark says:

      Because the further away you are from an object, the smaller it appears.

      View Comment
  14. Bob says:

    This is excellent research – thank god I’m not alone in having this false ‘moon’ idea bugging me all these years.

    One more point: I believe that when Herschel and Lowell saw “canals” on the “moon”, this was actually the remains of the scaffolding used for when They were building it.

    View Comment
  15. mike says:

    i found all the comments great..as a result, i can tell now my opinion…taking the fact that sun and moon have in our eyes, the same size in the sky, i can tell with great courage and possibility , that sun and moon are one and the same thing…i cant explain further.it needs more research…its dissapointing, that simple humans , have not the ability to explore the sky ..i wonder if we ever will be able to do it..

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That is what I am thinking these days. For me, the moon being the back of the Sun makes the most sense. What needs to be looked at are the phases of the moon and where it is in the sky throughout the year and see if this can be made sense of when looking at bending light. From personal observation, around the equinoxes the moon is directly opposite the Sun, but a touch higher in the sky. I.e. the Sun and moon were both above the horizon a couple of hours before sundown but directly opposite each other. Recently around the summer solstice (I think), the moon was a lot higher and 90 degrees from the setting Sun (southern direction) rather than directly opposite. I’ll make a note of it this autumn (fall) equinox moon. Last year it was the same as the Spring one.

      WH

      View Comment
      • Darren Bloom says:

        This video shows the sun and moon from a high altitude balloon. This would seem to dismiss the idea that the moon is the back of the sun. The footage starts at 3.44 in the video.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBYuvTVp2k0&feature=youtu.be

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Funnily enough, that is not the problem with the theory. The moon is occasionally seen in broad daylight in the sky together with the Sun at ground level. In a concave Earth and bending light etc. that situation isn’t an issue for me. I mentioned the problem I had on the concave Earth forum with light reflectivity from the moon being different than sunlight. I would have thought it should be the same as the light reflects off the shreibersite layer of the sulfur lamp sun. The moon outer layer would also be made of schreibersite if it were the sun and so I would have thought reflected the same way. Maybe there is an explanation there I hadn’t thought of though. I’ll leave it open for now.

          I did a quick look at the difference between moonlight and sunlight and maybe the solution is there after all.
          http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?/topic/38512-sunlight-vs-moonlighthelp-me/

          In short, the difference may be merely that the Sun has the addition of direct light from the sulfur filament (therefore more UV) as well as full and close reflected light from its “dish”, whereas the moon only has less (and further away because of the bend) reflected light from the “dish” or back of the Sun. Perhaps it is that simple. The moon also reflects light like a concave dish (as seen in the above article), therefore the Sun dish would be the opposite of that, i.e. parabolic (convex dish). This would make sense as the sunlight needs to spread around the most, hence the convex design.

          WH

          View Comment
  16. Vanessa says:

    Soooo it is weird to see the moon out 24-7!? I knew it… I can’t seem to find anything solid and everyone I talk to is a zombie. I live in west palm beach Florida. I’ve seen the moon out SEVERAL times and have pointed it out to people. Moon and the sun kind f across from it. For WEEKS. The moon should always be in a certain spot at a certain time of the night. No clouds no moon. Then I come back not even half hour later and there’s the moon… Half full shining bright. This has happened several times. I’ve also seen with another person, stars turning on and off. I’ve seen just the other night Venus (supposedly Venus) turn almost completely off and then get super bright even brighter then it was before. No clouds at all…. But the moon being out 24-7 has always been like a thing. Even full HUGE moon and bright sun beaming down… All day and out all night. I remember last year or so 2013ish during the summer this would happen and sometimes for weeks it wouldn’t be out at night and only in the day. I’ve also noticed since then it’s flipped upside down. The circle part used to be on the top like directly on top. Not sure what’s going on but flat earth makes sense. We are in some kind of huge machine… Damn you David icke I feel like he brainwashed me in a way… I am detangling such a frekken mess. Anyone want to collaborate with me? I consider myself to be advanced. I need direction in certain questions regarding dimensions, time travel and nibiru. This flat earth theory debunks pretty much everything I’ve learned but I have Astra traveled experience etc… Rewiring the brain for like the 4th time…

    View Comment
    • SPACE says:

      For me Earth form is not important. I go another way, when humans will understand what is Sun, Moon, stars, space-time continuum, they will understand, what is Earth.
      I also seen Moon upside down, I think in 2011. I think it’s related to time flow, because moon is often clipped to calendars.

      View Comment
  17. amused observer says:

    so, i suppose the retroreflectors placed on the moon is 1962 are also an optical illusion. weird how anyone with a high powered laser and detected can today independently very their existence.

    do you have an explanation why one particular place on the moon, and one place only, can perfectly reflect laser light back at it’s source, no matter when, where, or by whom this light is produced?

    is there a secret reflective satellite programmed by “the heliocentric elites” to perfectly track this “optical illusion” known as the moon position in the sky, just in case people decide to bounce a laser at it? a satellite that has been operation for the past 53 years? oh wait, you don’t think satellites exist… huh, well maybe the ether just like to randomly perfectly reflect light back at it’s source, huh, because… reasons, and maybe it just only happens to due that when people point it at on arbitrary place on one specific optical illusion…. also because reasons.

    yeah, i think i will stick with the theory that the moon is real, thanks.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The moon may be real. In fact, I think it is. But the effect we see is an optical one completely distorted in the Earth’s electrical cavity. My current take is that the moon is really the back of the Sun, which was my very first thought on the whole matter. The question then arises is how does light bend in the cavity to produce the different phases and positions of the moon relative to the Sun etc. That is why earth cavity optical effects (astronomy) is not an easy topic.

      Oh, and I do think satellites exist, but their deployment is a lie.

      No reflectors are needed on the moon.

      National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966
      ‘The Lasers Bright Magic’ by Thomas Meloy

      Page 876
      “Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment.”

      Many types of signals can be bounced off the Moon, even without any type of reflectors. In the 1950s, Moon-bounce was used to communicate around the curvature of the Earth. If you were in the military and wanted to talk with someone in Hawaii from California, you would bounce your conversation off the Moon.

      http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36712.0#.VX6xHWT3XIU

      The speed of light isn’t constant. Its speed has been proven to depend on the surrounding conditions.

      “Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic — 38 miles an hour.”

      http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL2gN8lnrxI&index=13&list=PLWvahZRxLnLPyckoX6AZu9BS7AkE2ixIc

      Personally, I don’t think anything is a constant in our world. Nothing at all. Perhaps if you took a frame of time/location, then that would be a constant. Then again, with multiverse theory, that too may be questionable.

      The electrical earth cavity skewers everything, especially perception. Light variables discovered so far by me only involve the horizon of which there is no constant; but there is no reason to not include the speed of light into the variation as well. In fact, I would expect it.

      WH

      View Comment
      • amused observer says:

        first, i made no mention of the consistency of the speed of light. obviously there are things which can slow down the speed of light, this is a well known scientific fact. it is the reason why glasses work, for goodness sake.

        second, yes, while there are other ways to bounce a signal off of the moon, the retro reflectors are still unique, in that no matter which angle you hit them at they will still send the singal right back at you. they are also far more reflective than any other part of the moon.

        so like i said, unless you have another reason for the retroreflectors unique properties, it is evidence that humans have gone to the moon, which, if possible, seems to blow a lot of holes in your theory.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, only I mentioned the speed of light as it goes hand in hand with CET and the moon.

          second, yes, while there are other ways to bounce a signal off of the moon, the retro reflectors are still unique, in that no matter which angle you hit them at they will still send the signal right back at you. they are also far more reflective than any other part of the moon.

          Not if they did that in 1962. That blows holes in your theory.

          Here is some direct NASA testimony which makes the moon landing a complete farce (as well as common sense).
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

          “Orion is NASA’s next generation spacecraft. Built with versatility in mind, it can take astronauts deeper into space than we have ever gone before… For these missions, Orion has to be one tough spacecraft – withstanding high speeds, searing temperatures and extreme radiation. Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems. And there is only one way to know we got it right – fly it in space… Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors on-board will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we put people through this region of space.”

          The Van Allen Belts and thermosphere both start between 100 km and 200 km altitude (coincidentally). Where is the moon according to mainstream theory?

          I rest my case.

          WH

          View Comment
  18. R.E. says:

    Hi WH. I watched that video you linked me to about he moon phases by Ka rol. It’s funny. The FIRST thing I saw when I clicked over to his YouTube page was some man’s expose on the sainted “apostle” Paul of Tarsus. I never liked Paul. He was so arrogant and not at all like Jesus. If we have Jesus, why do we need Paul? He was a giant bore with his “much speaking”. Not to pat myself on the back, but when I shared my thoughts about him with other Christians, they pretty much concluded that I am demon possessed.

    If one does not consider the bible true, then Paul’s buffoonery is thrown into even sharper contrast with Jesus from a literary standpoint. Indeed my favorite writer on all things biblical is an atheist. She is able to see what is really written, unemotionally.

    Something is on my mind about the moon – in the Old Testament and Torah, the Hebrews were to closely monitor for signs of the new moon, because the moon was their time piece. Not the sun, not a made up calendar – the moon.

    Towns in Israel and Judea set watchmen on a roof to look for the moon, or its absence. They were not to fall asleep. Once that month’s calendar was worked out, a feast day or Sabbath could officially begin. They did this for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years, month in, month out. In Jerusalem, there were educated, learned classes of people, and yet no one thought to just draw up a moon phase calendar and avoid the needless complication? Silly people, didn’t they know the moon has an easily predictable 28 day cycle?

    Now, if we nowadays could just plug in and project the moon’s phases hundreds of years into the future before computing software like Stellarium, why couldn’t the ancient Hebrews? If anyone could draw up a moon phase calendar, it was they. But maybe they couldn’t. If they could, they would. Why not? It’s because the moon does not follow the projected phases so neatly. It must be observed afresh each day, each month. More and more people are noticing this, but if you announce it, you’ll sound… unstable. Maybe your friends and spouse will become concerned for you. Maybe you won’t be up for that promotion and so on. Best keep it to yourself.

    The importance of the watchmen takes on new meaning in the concave earth concept.

    Maybe the Hebrews knew that you couldn’t just draw up a precise spreadsheet of future moon phases based on past ones, because it’s not as simple as the 28 day cycle.

    View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      To clarify my comment about Hebrew watchmen: yes, ancient people knew which day to set watchmen insofar as the new moon was nearing, but they did or could not calculate the hour of the new lunar day. They had to watch carefully, sometimes for two days. Why didn’t they have foreknowledge of the moonrises down to the hour and minute like we have had for decades? They could “call” the new days and months far in advance that way, but they didn’t.

      This makes me want to pay closer mind to the moon.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I know that where I live there are a few days in early-mid October the full moon appears opposite the Sun well off the horizon in the exact opposite side of the sky – about 4 o’clockish, a couple of hours before the sun sets. I need to capture that on a video camera that can see the moon fairly well. Why? Well, I don’t remember ever seeing that moon rise up from the horizon. It may have done, but it also may have just appeared in the sky. If it just appears at the 4 o’clock position, then I have further insight as to what the moon may be and what is happening.

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          “Well, I don’t remember ever seeing that moon rise up from the horizon. It may have done, but it also may have just appeared in the sky.”

          Building on my above statements about the Hebrews observing the moon – they were to do this even though they were surrounded by Babylonians who were known for their astronomy knowledge, yet the chosen people of God were strictly not to take on the way of the Babylonians. Hmm. Why would God, we’re told, direct his people to bother with it all if they were awash in accurate astronomical information? How superfluous, and not consistent with an all knowing, benevolent God. A fiction editor would demand a rewrite, because it doesn’t make sense.

          My point: I suspect one reason for the fuss over watchmen observing the moon was to keep from being fooled by the Babylonians with their calendars, because like you say and many have observed, the moon exhibits “behavior”. One does not even have to believe these scriptures one way or the other, because what is being communicated is the message: don’t trust the dominant culture. Watch the moon with your own eyes.

          View Comment
        • SPACE says:

          that’s true, moon never rises from horizon, it appears like from nowhere.

          View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            SPACE said “that’s true, moon never rises from horizon, it appears like from nowhere.”

            A skeptic would read your statement, call us all morons, and rightfully say it’s because the moon isn’t always well lit enough to appear right at a horizon. That is, the moon rises from the horizon (if I recall, my weather station gives moon rise and set times down to the minute, as did the Babylonians I would bet), but only becomes visible to us when sufficient light hits it, causing it to “suddenly appear”.

            View Comment
          • SPACE says:

            @R.E. No, no. Moon often appears out of nowhere. Yes, it rises sometimes like Sun, but I would say it’s 6 times out of 6. It’s very easy to check, just take notice when becomes dark and look to the sky, usually east-south, south. You’ll see Moon up 45 degrees, no matter what phase. And there’s no time for error, dark become just 3 min. back, no time for rising.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Funny you should mention that. I was thinking recently that I must look at the sky at the time of the moon appearing to see how it first appears. Does it rise or just appear? If it just appears, it is further evidence of an optical effect. Not that the moon isn’t real, just that what we see is skewered.

            View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I strongly, very strongly, suspect that variation in both intensity, and the bend of light within the concave Earth at different times and locations (including altitude) is the culprit.

      What still fascinates me is that video of the weather balloon sent up on the March morning of this year during the Sun eclipse and no eclipse was observed. I bet the eclipse is an electrical/bendy light issue not a physical one. Maybe an interference in conflicting light rays at low altitude or something like that.

      View Comment
  19. Dorothy says:

    On my walk tonight I looked up at the moon and it was very close. No way is it 384,400 km away. Also, one of your commenters said the believe NASA scientist. Well I think the honest ones have been killed over the past two years….around 75 lost their lives in very strange way. Keep testing and pushing the envelope because the bible says we are under a firmament. – Glass sky with windows and doors.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I heard Steve mention that about the 75 killed in the last 2 years. Really? That is pretty wild. Is there a web page on that or something?

      View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      Dorothy, honest ones aren’t allowed top clearance if they’re even allowed to work for NASA at all. The ones we see are all actors. When they are “killed” it is their character being killed off.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Cluesforum’s Simon Shack saw an Italian video of an expose on one of their space station actornauts. She told the interviewer her age and when she joined the space academy. It was worked out that she must have been 24 when she joined the academy to be an astronaut. Turns out the age limit on joining the academy is 22 years old. Lol.

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          “Cluesforum’s Simon Shack saw an Italian video of an expose on one of their space station actornauts. She told the interviewer her age and when she joined the space academy. It was worked out that she must have been 24 when she joined the academy to be an astronaut. Turns out the age limit on joining the academy is 22 years old. Lol.”

          I saw that. The inside of the Italian “spacecraft” looked like a teenager’s bedroom. It even had a sign up stating their supposed travel speed. Haha. Cluesforum has some good posts, but it’s becoming more apparent that its function is to prevent the dwindling number of savvy people from unmasking the WHO and the WHY: the magic makers don’t care if you know everything is a lie, but they don’t want you to know the specific motivation of our overlords nor do they want us to know which families are involved and their real names. They can’t have that because it instantly empowers us and disempowers them. The two vulnerable spots for a trickster is their true identity and their true motivation. Once one or both of those are known, it’s over for them and they know it.

          The skycentric model hits too close to their true motivation (concealing the true model of our universe). Research that seeks to identify these families in charge (the ones who act many different roles through the ages and are fiercely loyal to their hidden agenda) is sneered at on Cluesforum, because, I strongly suspect, it is the job of one or more people behind that site. to steer readers away from the truth which they already know.

          You’ll notice that the thread goes sour on CF if the discussion heads that way – the real WHO or the real WHY. Talk about anything else, just not that.

          View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Godrules has a video where he mentions someone he knows working for NASA I think, or their family member. He says it is all highly compartmentalized. Nobody knows what anyone else is doing, unlike military gun manufacturers. He thought that was a bit odd.

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          Yeah, but I have to wonder if any of those engineers and scientists – paid for their skills of observation – ever pause to wonder if rockets are REALLY speeding through the sky at about one mile per second (if that were so, they’d be gone from our unaided sight in fewer than five seconds). Last night I watched a clip of an Indian rocket launch. It may have been one of your videos. The rocket just flopped back down toward the ground. There is no way that thing cleared into orbit.

          Don’t they thwart people’s suspicions by saying that the fuel tank is ejected once aircraft get high enough, and that is what we see falling back to earth? But the scientists have to know that the well published and pushed alleged speed of launched rockets is a lie. There is no way they travel at red hot speeds of about a mile per second, and NASA can’t spin that. You’d have to have some major cognitive dissonance to buy that as a scientist.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I have an article brewing on that. By looking at all the space debris that has ever fallen I can conclude that only the booster rockets are ejected pre-glass. The lower half of the payload fairing hits first and sometimes the impact breaks a piece off.

            View Comment
  20. Joe says:

    Why don’t mountains have clarity from distance on earth? Because of the atmosphere.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      It probably is the atmosphere to a certain extent. I don’t think it can account for all of it though. I’d say one reason could be that the moon is self lighting (it doesn’t seem to be a reflection of the sunlight) and mountains aren’t.

      View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      “Why don’t mountains have clarity from distance on earth? Because of the atmosphere.”

      Oh that settles it then. Fanks.

      Isn’t there more atmosphere between your eyeballs and the moon than between the photo taker and the pictured scenery?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Probably, especially if the view to the mountain was from a high up position as well. If you are 1km above sea level and see a mountain 10km away, then you have 10 x the density of air at 1km to look through. If you look at the bright moon at sea level, you have 100km of increasingly less density to look through. I remember the difference in density isn’t much between say sea level and 4 or 5km. One website worked it out about two/thirds less dense roughly. At 100km it is calculated as 1 million times less so obviously they have calculated an exponential curve. Taking everything into consideration I’d still say there is more atmosphere to the moon than to the mountain.

        View Comment
  21. R. E. says:

    Once again the moon has barely moved in the past ten hours where I am.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Really? Need to get it videoed somehow. What is the battery life? A couple of hours? If you have a camcorder/phone (anything to record) and have a frame of reference like a tree in the foreground then it would be great to get this on video.

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Oops I never replied. Someone could say that we just don’t understand the elliptical orbit of the moon, which causes it to appear to hang in the sky when it is distant and race across the sky when it is nearer, and also bring up the magnifying properties of the atmosphere yada yada.

        Anyway I can set it up so that my camcorder (and I have to use an old fashioned camcorder since photo cameras shut off after a time) is plugged in as I film. The problem is I haven’t been able to catch the moon out while it’s sunny over here : /

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Karol has a video on the moon phases predicted by the mainstream which actually don’t happen in reality 100%.

          Let us know how you get on.

          WH

          View Comment
    • SPACE says:

      what I noticed strange, my “official” calendar, that hangs on wall, is late for 3 days to show beginning of new moon. and it happens already 3 years.

      View Comment
  22. R. E. says:

    That .gif with the light behind the leaves may not be footage of the moon. The light switches from marshmallow to round and almost looks to be playing hide and seek with the person holding the camera. I can see no markings on the light that would look like a moonscape.

    I have witnessed moon anomalies before though.

    View Comment
  23. R. E. says:

    Hi guys. I think the Brocken Spector could offer clues about the moon. It points to a concave earth. I would link but I’m on my phone.

    In the summer of 2001 I noticed a bizarre moon anomaly with friends, which hinted that if the moon is truly bouncing our sun’s light, then that light is not direct (so maybe the glass lens is involved).

    I have since noted anomalies I the supposed moon phases as well. For instance, sometimes it will take all day for it to inch across the sky, and other times it travels across the sky quickly. Now, an supposed elliptical pattern of travel would not account for other anomalies, such as when its wax / wane face is out of sync with what is printed on calendars (this happened recently)!

    So the Earth is not casting a shadow on the moon. What, if anything, is?

    I actually don’t think that the gatekeepers at NASA etc. are scum. I used to think that, but I think they aren’t sloppy and incompetent with their lies – I think want some of us to piece it together. For crying out loud the moon above is is dancing and cartwheeling and no one seems to notice or care.

    View Comment
    • R. E. says:

      Make that Brocken spectre

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      You could well be right. I too find it odd that they don’t bother editing out the bubbles in processing, or not show that small bit of footage with the scuba guy still visible. Maybe they think they don’t need to, because the public isn’t vigilant enough. The YT vids show that some people are though… so.

      View Comment
  24. Christopher says:

    Hello Wild Heretic,
    I was first introduced to this topic watching LSCs videos which have convinced me that the concave earth theory is by far the best one to date. Your information and work is great and I wanted to thank you. I am sure you have thought about this already but what is your opinion regarding the claim that the sun rotates on its axis? Below is basically the answer you get on a Google search

    “Galileo discovered from the movement of sunspots that the Sun rotates on its own axis, and each revolution takes about an earth month.

    However, because the Sun is fluid not solid, it spins faster at its equator (27 days) than at the poles (35 days). The Sun spins in the same direction as the planets orbit around it, which is not surprising as the Sun and the planets condensed from the same rotating disc of gas.”

    On a different note, the corrupt powers that be must know that we live inside the earth, I am sure they have repeated these experiments many times to prove a concave earth and must have a double space program as well. They have the fake science fed to us, the slaves, the profane, and all the real stolen money and effort goes to there occult science which is only for the eyes of the few scam artists that have orchestrated this amazing physiological mind control war against the people for hundreds if not thousands of years. God bless the truth however bizarre it may be. what a mystery we live in. Thanks again to you and Steven and all the other people helping to uncover the truth.

    One last thing, many people have a hard time believing in such a radical theory mainly because they do not understand how deep and complex the psychological warfare against humanity has been, I would like to recommend Alan Watt for those of you who have not listened to him, he is a brilliant mind and his research into the topic is the best out there in my opinion. His web page is http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/ and he has weekly YouTube videos.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Chris,

      No problem. I’ll be talking a little bit about the Sun’s plasmasphere rotation in the next article. What I think is going on is that the sunspots, aka the Sun’s plasmasphere, or electrical field, rotates around the Sun (and also rotates upwards and downwards at the equinoxes by 26 point something degrees). The key here is not to confuse the actual physical Sun with its electric field rotation.

      I have a theory at the moment that stars are just bits of the Sun (meteorites or asteroids) which have come off and have become trapped in the Sun’s electric field in very close proximity to the Sun, following the Sun as it precesses. These stars revolve around the Sun every 72 days roughly because they move 4 minutes faster than 24 hours. I’ve found a bit of evidence for an oppositely charged object to follow another charged objected as it moves, but it isn’t conclusive.

      Because the stars would rotate every 72 days and the sunspots rotate every 30 days or so, then it looks like the further distance away from the Sun, the slower the rotation which means that the electric field could be possibly an irrotational vortex (like a tornado), but I’m not sure yet. Certainly it becomes weaker the further out we travel radially. These stars must be negatively charged in relation to the positively charged Sun as space is positive and the Earth’s crust is negative and creates the Van Allen Belts in my opinion.

      It is Keely and then later Tesla (who visited Keely apparently and learned the secret) who invented a flying board or apparatus said to be powered by “negative charge”, whatever that means. So far it looks like “positively charged” material is heavy and is repelled by the Sun (gravity) originating from the H-field of the holes near the poles, and negatively charged objects are light and move upwards. Whatever those two terms mean though, I am not sure.

      Hope that helps.

      WH

      View Comment
  25. lydios says:

    ATTENTION…Experiment idea.Read here!!
    http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/

    What if many people hit the dark side of the moon with multiple lasers…A laser strong may illuminate the moon.According to the concave theory and common sense its not that far…Think about it…what do you say?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Lydios, I’m not too sure there is a dark side as the moon looks like to be a projection. If there is a dark side then I don’t think any light will be able to hit it as all light bends towards the center of the Earth cavity and the dark side of the supposed solid moon is on the other half of the cavity.

      View Comment
  26. Tilis says:

    Wild Heretic
    I recommend you this You tube channel crow777 this guy had a very good new telescope and his videos are awesome about the moon and the anomalies. Check his last moon video, the moon like a Hologram.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGmF6yVK0Q

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Tilis. I have seen his channel. Some fabulous stuff on there especially the “reset” wave. It’s also great that others have now captured this very odd phenomenon. There is so much more to add to the article but it will have to wait. This comments section will do for now.

      View Comment
  27. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Why is the Moon the only body in our solar system that has a crescent and eclipses, while Jupiter and the other giants we never see a crescent (should be seen frequently) or eclipse of these giant planets, there is fabricated pictures of this but no amateur photos or videos ?
    Also in my city when i look at the night sky all the celestial objects in the south sky are much brighter and plentiful than the north sky where the objects are sparse and dim, in stellarium it shows north and south skies equal in stars and luminance, also other folks i have talked to mention this also, and i notice this also when away from city lights where the light of the city would be south of my position, ruling out light glare

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Good questions. I don’t know. About the brightness I don’t know. Maybe the abundance of stars in the south sky could be because you have more south sky than north if you know what I mean. I’m guessing your latitude is around 55 degrees north (Canadian border?). You see the north star fairly high in the sky I think. If the stars are around a small “globe” shape around the Sun in the center, then I think you might see the entire topside and bit of the bottom side to the right and just a small part of the other side. Maybe, the aether or electric field is strongest at the equator and weakest at the poles so that brightness and abundance are taken into account? A bit confusing with my word choice, but it is just a stab in the dark; it may not be that at all. I’ll have to get stellarium eventually.

      What I find strange is the difference in size the moon gets every month I think it is. The size difference is quite substantial. I once saw an absolute whopper of a full moon in 2001 in Australia… I mean like it seemed to be ten times the apparent size of a normal one. Is it really because an orbiting solid spherical body moves a lot closer and then further away to the concave crust? Or is it an optical effect caused by something else?

      View Comment
  28. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Astronomer LupuVictorDaniel

    Sunlight reveals the Moon is made of glass? Video and Images by my telescope
    http://lupuvictor.blogspot.ca/2012/07/sunlight-reveals-moon-is-made-of-glass.html

    Our Moon is not what you think it is
    http://lupuvictor.blogspot.ca/2012/07/our-moon-is-not-what-you-think-it-is.html

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hey Don, your comment on one of Stevie’s videos led me to look up up “concave Earth” on the flat earth society forum. Have you seen Schulelos’s post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61977.msg1629303#msg1629303

      It has Cyrus Teed written all over it and would agree with the moon and planets being optical illusions or projections. He reckons they are projections of the Earth’s crust, which is what Teed said. Bizarrely, he believes men landed on the moon :), which would be kind of difficult if the moon is a projection of the Earth’s crust lol.

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

        Never saw that post WH, such a shame he believes in the moon landings if the moon is an illusion or projection, very interesting post though, i was subscribed to a guy moonhitsearth and he also points out the moon and earth terrains are a reflection of earth/moon

        Interesting, thx WH, bookamarked that page and found him on yt https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnWa8nX6BZ8dTBGN7wJBJnQ

        Sculelos
        “I do believe that the planets are not tiny, but they are stretched out layers of Earth basically as when you go deep enough into space everything curves convex instead of concave so you are walking on layers of Earth that are opposite to Earth and spread out into the heavens but it’s still the Earth. How do I know this? Well I have evidence that the landmarks of all the planets feature features that are found on Earth and they are exactly the same features.

        Like NASA’s first Moon mission for example:”

        View Comment
          • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

            Moon Hitsearth(Dave Schneider) shows every weather pattern over earth is a projection of the earth’s surface in the form of clouds, and they all match the lunar surface backwards

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            It could well be, as clouds are water vapour and are affected by the electric current through the crust. So the electric current coming up through the crust into the atmosphere may keep the same imprint or pattern of the crust as it rises up which the water vapour reacts to.

            As far as the “same but inverted patterns on the moon” goes, well that is interesting. Could it be something to do with the photoelectric effect? Could some of the electrons in the atmosphere (or maybe past the glass) condense and form an image? Could the image be on the glass and act like a photographic plate or something like that? This is a definite toehold into explaining the moon and planets. In a concave Earth, the electrons are moving up and there is less space the higher they go obviously. Could this phenomenon cause images of the Earth’s crust to form?

            View Comment
    • charles says:

      If the moon was made of glass, then why don’t we see the stars through it as in passes through the night skies? You lot are realy bunkers…….if you read your Bible correctly, you will see in Genisis how God created everything, the sun, moon, stars,planets……..why would he make the moon out of glass??? Glass was not even discovered then! My jaw actually dropped when I read all this bull. You talk about the Illuminati and conspiricy, but I think you guys are seriously why of the truth. As God predicted in His word….in the end of days the truth will be the lie and the lie will be the truth!

      View Comment
  29. hoi.polloi says:

    Hi, this is hoi.polloi from CluesForum. I thank you for your questions, even if you can’t be as rigorously anti-shill with this subject as you may want to be (simply because there isn’t a large enough sample size of your audience to determine who is pulling our legs or not). As these questions grow in importance, I think you may attract more people to the philosophy of thinking for one’s self.

    On the subject of what the Moon may or may not be, I would be curious if you had included in your considerations my point about the inaccurate angle of light on the Moon (from the obviously flawed/incomplete Copernican model). The posts are in our thread on these subjects here under an entry called ‘How is the Moon lit?’:

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&start=270#p2388703

    I couldn’t help but recently notice that the angle of light might be less extreme if we lived in a concave Koreshian shell-type Earth. If light bends in convex form (compared to theoretically concave, flat or even convex surface models of Earth), we would expect to see the kind of light we do see every time the Moon and Sun are out at the same time. (I highly encourage everyone to pay attention next time this happens and they have a chance to witness it for themselves. Anyone can see the angle of light on the Moon is terribly wrong unless light bends dramatically in some way).

    The concave Earth model suggests a behavior of light that is more consistent with the way we actually observe the Moon’s light to behave, even if the Sun and Moon have the relationship we are taught by the dominant paradigm.

    Those who are herded by this paradigm are teaching us in school to observe evidence for a concave Earth model, but to ignore that evidence and merely believe the replacement evidence they give us in cheesy and inaccurate illustrations and cartoons of their fake evidence.

    The fake evidence looks like the Earth and Moon (and planets) as balls of admittedly exaggerated (but not admittedly misleading) proportions lit by a wall of light coming from a single direction. Not only is the Earth lit ‘incorrectly’ by this model (and which must be explained away as a “refraction” nobody fully studies but merely assumes) so is the Moon.

    Please consider these angles when making your next posts about the relationship of the Sun to the Moon to the unknown behavior of light from/on each, since these are some of the most obvious things right under our noses that go unmentioned in any discussion of this matter.

    Again, thanks for your efforts. Well done at maintaining the focus on science. One day soon, I hope you are honored for the service you are performing for humanity.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for your input and support hoi.polloi.

      I haven’t been on cluesforum for a while and so I missed that moon evidence. I will definitely add it to this article for sure (with more “issues” besides) when I revamp the prelude articles after finishing off this concave Earth thesis. The moon is such a mystery to me that any added info is invaluable.

      Speaking of which. The last few nights (excluding last night and the night before I think) myself and my wife noticed a very, very full moon (looked completely circular) lowish in the sky where the Sun rose that morning and the Sun was at the same altitude (angle) in the sky but at the opposite end about to set. There were still two hours of daylight thereabouts (just after 4pm I think it was). I thought this very odd because if I remember correctly I don’t think the standard model has an explanation for this.

      http://www.moonconnection.com/images/moon_phases_diagram.jpg

      View Comment
  30. Reverend Veritas says:

    I assume the tides are caused not by a massive orbiting satellite but by a series of tidal generators installed at the bottom of the oceans put there to make us think they’re caused by the gravity of the Moon while a satellite in orbit projects the hologram onto artificial cloud cover. Do you ever step back and realize how absolutely bat shit insane this all is or how many trillions of dollars it would cost every year just to maintain this global hoax and in total secrecy?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t think that the moon is an artificial reflection but a natural phenomenon brought about by the electromagnetic Earth cavity. It needn’t be. It is only a suggestion to a solution to the beyond strange issues about the moon not just in this article but in other YouTube videos as well. One of my favorites is that the reflected light off the moon is definitely not sunlight. Mmmm, disks in the sky that light up themselves. How odd.

      View Comment
    • Objective One says:

      The tides are caused by the sun. The electro-magnetic energy causes a contraction and expansion of the water density. Temperature (and other characteristics of sunlight) have a huge effect on water. Also, watch some videos of how flowers follow the sun as it moves across the sky in the course of a day. 

      I also want to ask you all why the UStream of the ISS over Earth shows the night side of Earth being pitch black? Even over the ocean, we should see something due to the moonlight.

      View Comment
      • Saros says:

        I think anyone by now should have realized that the ISS is a hoax, thus the live HD video feed is actually CGI. You can never see anything in that live video ever besides water and clouds. I seriously doubt people have actually been into space. Some people argue that space travel in vacuum is impossible, I kind of like to side with them. I can imagine that the future space tourists will be some millionaires who are into the conspiracy, or might even support it.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          If there will be Richards Branson-eske “space” flights then they will only be a parabolic up and down to about 90km I reckon. At least that is what I heard many years ago that that was the plan (before I heard about the concave Earth etc.) Sounds like a waste of money with the exception that they will see the Earth from a much greater height than mere mortals get to see.

          View Comment
  31. Bob says:

    The Moon is very likely a balancing device/spaceship
    It would be able to balance and monitor the electromagnetic fields of the Earth and Sun to make sure the sun didn’t fall out of the sky or turn off etc. and it clearly turns under its own power which has been witnessed many times (search youtube) and it would HAVE to do this to keep one side facing away always.
    Is it phosphoresance stimulated by the magnetic field?
    Reflected sunlight? or perhaps reflected EARTH LIGHT?
    When you look at it sometimes it ‘feels’ very close and other times seems much farther away. Because sometimes it is very close.
    I have stared at it for years with many telescopes.
    It is there. It is a ball. or at least half of one.
    It is an intelligently controlled (manned) object (ship).
    There are legends of a time before the moon and that when it came the floods came with it.
    Is it/they here to help? Not doing a very good job.
    Here to oversee the management of your new ‘world’ that you conquered or created to farm ‘people’? Couldn’t pick a better vantage point.

    The Moon is Their Base.
    Their HEADQUARTERS.
    Some of those craters look like someone might have fired a shot or two at it in the past also lol
    I would account for an extremely thick titanium like shell before trying that move again.

    just a theory…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      It would HAVE to do this to keep one side facing away always.
      More evidence that it might not be solid.

      Is it phosphorescence stimulated by the magnetic field?
      Need to look into that. Sounds promising.

      Reflected sunlight? or perhaps reflected EARTH LIGHT?
      If I was a betting man, I’d say the latter.

      There are legends of a time before the moon and that when it came the floods came with it.
      I see the moon as an after-effect rather than the cause of anything. Sounds like a change in pressure.

      Here to oversee the management of your new ‘world’ that you conquered or created to farm ‘people’? Couldn’t pick a better vantage point.
      While writing the next article I reckon the Earth could be a computer. I don’t know what that makes us though.

      View Comment
  32. Dave J says:

    Yes it is a hologram, God created 2 great lights, the “moon” being the lessor.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfqTdg5QcLU

    View Comment
  33. panos says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAT7-qQWLs

    Does it seem like a reflection or not?

    View Comment
  34. Andrew says:

    I still think the moon is real and is a lesser light than the Sun which explains why we can see it in full focus but can’t see Mountains as clear 40 or 50 miles away without blurring. This would also explain why we don’t see it as a sphere from reflected light, ie the center should be more bright than the edge if it was reflected light from the sun. I have also observed on occasion the anomaly that in morning when the moon is still visible in daylight and when the Sun and Moon were 180 degrees opposite each other and both at least 15-20 degrees above the horizon, only a 2/3 moon was showing which should not be possible under the current scientific paradigm. I think the moon is also a light but a lesser one though not necessarily a sphere like the Sun. The same optical tricks that we see with the Sun can therefore also apply to the Moon.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Conspiracydude was saying that moonlight is totally different to sunlight which means it has its own light… but how? If true then my bet is that the moon is a reflection of something else. Same for the planets. I can’t say at the moment until I go through all his other stuff on the moon. For now I’ll just have to scratch it down to unexplained aetheric phenomenon of which I am unaware. You never know, things may come to light later (pardon the pun). 🙂

      Maybe a good area to investigate is what here on Earth emits its own light that is not a light-bulb? Preferably natural, but also technological, especially in the area of electrics, and see if anything could make sense.

      View Comment
      • From your bendy light article, with the time reversal symmetry of light, I”d say that the forward/backward direction of the photon, and the charge difference, is at play with the difference between sunlight and moonlight. You are seeing the backward directed light hitting the moon within the concave earth as the sunlight bends around the glass sky to hit the moon. That’s why moonlight is different than sunlight.

        View Comment
  35. OneOfTheSheeple says:

    Ok,im gonna trow another card on the table.Been thinking for it for some time.

    We dont know what light is.
    We know moonlight is not reflected sunlight.(Light is not Light)
    We know sunlight bends upward.(Rolf Kepler)
    We dont know if moonlight does that.
    We know the moon and the sun have the same size in the sky.

    What if the sun and the moon are the same thing?One lightsource fueling them both?

    Im going to check for connections between moon-phases and sun/weather events.
    I am also thinking to do put the moon on top of the sun on a picture using mirrors and see what happens.But for that one needs a good weather and the right timing.(It snot every day you have the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time)

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Worth researching.

      View Comment
    • partofyou says:

      I am quite sure that moon is not reflecting sun, but to confirm that i will need to “make” lots of parabolic mirrors, and concentrate moon light to one spot. If temperature rise at least 0.5 degree, you may say it can be, but i heard that temperature actually drops up to 8 degrees, but that`s only talks for now.. But worth checking.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Most defininately worth checking. After watch conspiracydudes video on the other strange things about the moon I would definately say his points are worth looking into and verifying. I’ll be doing it after the next article when I add a little bit of extra stuff to the others.

        View Comment
  36. Sue says:

    My recommendation would be to research “holographic universe”, consciousness and neurology (Dennett’s research is a great beginning), and read “The Gospel of Thomas”!

    ;)=)

    View Comment
  37. Jonny says:

    I want to start by thanking you for putting together a wealth of great information and interesting contributors alike.

    However I do need to play devil’s advocate here – correct me if I am wrong but I haven’t been able to find a single instance of successful predictions for the concave Earth, optical illusion/reflection Luna, “glass sky”, etc. theories thus far – just simplistic one-dimensional ad hoc theories that semi-fit what we see.

    Do you have any predictions to make based on these models?

    The standard models also completely fail the prediction test, and the ability to predict new discoveries is what makes real science.

    Another alternative model from the nuts(and bolts) at the Thunderbolts Project referred to as “EU Theory” has made several successful predictions which upon later observation “shocked”, “surprised” and sent NASA ‘scientists’ “back to the drawing boards” when being confirmed in real-time.

    The ability to predict accurately what we find in the future is what makes real science, not merely coming up with “plausible” descriptions for what we see and believe(think we know) now.

    Don’t get me wrong I believe in “questioning everything” and have even been a member on a Flat Earth Society site before but like the FE’ers your site seems to miss some important issues/questions and makes some dangerous overly-simplistic assumptions based on a limited sample of evidence selectively chosen – any evidence you don’t like is simply fabricated, right? …

    How does the “moon is an optical illusion” or reflection of the “sun disk” off the “glass sky” of a concave Earth model work during a Lunar eclipse?

    Are you positing that a reflection of the sun’s light and image is capable of BLOCKING or ‘canceling out’ the actual direct sun light?

    You do present many legitimate challenges and issues with the ‘standard’ models of today but your extrapolations of the “solutions” for those issues are much more complexly nutty than my own or most others I have come across.

    The KISS philosophy seems to be completely ignored at times, and taken to the extreme at other times around here.

    Real science is messy so I’m not complaining as many of your articles have been very enlightening and provide great summations of “anomalous” data with some interesting and at times humorous notes.

    I do admit that I find some of your theories laughable, though that certainly doesn’t define their credibility by any means, I am very interested in word on any predictions that have been made in the past or could be made now regarding these models.

    Without at least one non-ad hoc successful prediction for your model(s) it remains mere speculation rather than actual science in my opinion, as interesting as it may be in aspects.

    Cheers,
    Jonny

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Jonny,

      Which models are you referring to exactly? Concave Earth Theory? To me it doesn’t matter whether at the moment we have a workable model that explains everything. If we had, that we would be Gods of the highest order. I am only one man, one brain, one perspective.. and nothing more can be expected of me. I wish I knew the actual structure of the aether and what it really is and works and know the answer to life the universe and everything, but I don’t.

      All that matters is that an experiment has been done to verify the shape of the Earth and everything must therefore be built on top of that foundation. Science I believe are experiments conducted (usually with a control) and then its up to each individual to form their own conclusions. Models are theoretical and therefore not science, but they can still be interesting and of course very useful in certain practices. Everything else on this site is speculation with logic and evidence provided (wrong or right), but then so is the electric universe theory. It doesn’t matter if a theory can predict every last thing to an exact accuracy (probably impossible due to all the variable factors), it is still a theory and isn’t science. Regarding models, I’ve noticed that some models aren’t mutually exclusive and there are overlaps and are possibly just different perspectives.

      I will be able to contribute in that field a little bit though. Next up is a model for a sulfur lamp Sun inside the Earth and where it is and how it moves etc. There seems to be a simple phi relationship funnily enough as well. Could be a clue to the aether. Is it the definitive word on this topic? No. Is it a truth? Maybe. Does it work? Seems to.

      How does the “moon is an optical illusion” or reflection of the “sun disk” off the “glass sky” of a concave Earth model work during a Lunar eclipse?
      No idea. The moon is a mystery to me and so are lunar eclipses. I don’t think the sun is a reflection though, but the light could be invisible if we were to sit next to it, and not melt;) due to the disappearing stars effect etc. I don’t understand aetheric processes really. A bit of speculation here and there from a few clues. That is something for extreme higher learning. You never know, I may get lucky, or maybe not. One tiny step at a time for me on that front. Planets are also very strange. I had a brief look into them and I think I may plonk them into the moon category for now as possible optical illusions of some kind.

      Now with that out of the way, I have a quick question:

      Another alternative model from the nuts(and bolts) at the Thunderbolts Project referred to as “EU Theory” has made several successful predictions which upon later observation “shocked”, “surprised” and sent NASA ‘scientists’ “back to the drawing boards” when being confirmed in real-time.

      Sounds great. Could you give a very brief summary of the model?

      This is starting to get close to the sulphur lamp theory:
      http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

      Cheers,
      WH

      View Comment
    • sceppy says:

      Jonny says:
      How does the “moon is an optical illusion” or reflection of the “sun disk” off the “glass sky” of a concave Earth model work during a Lunar eclipse?

      Are you positing that a reflection of the sun’s light and image is capable of BLOCKING or ‘canceling out’ the actual direct sun light?

      The waves from the centre of Earth thata re emitted through a prism like crystal (diamond, MAYBE) work in two ways.
      It works by converging the primary colours, red green and blue that mix into all the colours of what we know in the spectrum.

      Once they all converge, we see a white light, or the sun projected from them.
      Let’s call this a positive light that wll reflect.

      However, there is also a negative spectrum created as well from this which is the creating another set of primary colours for the negative spectrum which are cyan, magenta and yellow that make up the other spectrum so this would be also converged toward the dome creating a similar sun effect…..EXCEPT that these converged colours of the spectrum, make BLACK not white..so now we also have a black sun (if you can call it that lol) let’s call it a black spot of unseen converged negative waves.

      The difference between the white light and the black light, is the white light can reflect at will through larger and smaller crystal prisms that show us what we see in the sky as they resonate and move arround the sky.

      The negative converged waves that make black, go around the sky and dissolve the light of the moon and occasionaly the sun as it passes into it’s mix with black absorbing every wave.

      Can anyone understand what I’m saying?
      Put your mind to it and have a real good think about it. It makes perfect sense to me, so let me know what you all think.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I think I get you for the most part screppy.

        I like your idea that the physical processes (or aetheric) causing the eclipse is intimately connected to the different visible states of the moon. That would make sense to me in a concave Earth. What these processes are I have no idea. There is a slight possibility that the electric universe theory may inadvertently shine some light on it… or maybe not.

        View Comment
  38. ObjectiveOne says:

    Here are the answers to some of the questions you asked. A friend of mine with a similar theory has helped to answer them and we are working on the remaining questions. First off, I would like to say that I don’t believe the heliocentric model of a spinning, spherical Earth. I firmly believe everything we see in the sky is reflections of objects that are moving at the center of Earth. Whether it’s flat, bowl shaped (slightly concave), or a pyramid, the center is the South Pole. And the reason we only see the center objects and not the rest of the Earth (city lights at night, etc.) is because of the atmosphere there, being colder than anywhere else on Earth. With all that compacted/compressed ice, crystals are formed and that is what we call stars. I mentioned the book The Crystal Sun by Robert Temple – worth reading!

    Why is the Sun producing light waves in just about the same amount and type as a sulfur lamp?

    Because it is essentially very similar in it’s working. The only difference is in how it’s done in it’s own immediate environment.
    A sulfur lamp has immediate sea level atmosphere to scatter it’s light, plus the obvious reflected silver back plate and side plate. If you were to take those reflective plates away, you would see a little dark glow with little emitted light. So we can see where the ice/glass dome against a vacuum comes in very handy.

    With the Earth sun, it’s powerful wave form has no immediate reflective light apart from a straight up shoot into extreme low pressure straight laser like shot it’s projecting into. The reflected light will come from the crystal (probably pyramid like) prism that puts the waves together in their wave forms. It only acts like the sulfur lamp once it hits he reflection and is projected back to the thicker atmosphere, (think of a prism projected onto a piece of paper and converging into one wave…white light) in terms of our vision.

    What is creating the thermosphere?

    It’s all a mixture from start to finish from bottom to top of solids and gases and what makes those gases which take their forms in various states, as in pressurized solids that create liquid to gases, to the less pressurized escaping gases from that which form a sandwich layer all the way up to the dome. Becoming a lighter and lighter liquid and gas until it becomes so expanded due to having virtually zero pressure on it. It becomes a super light solid or frozen helium for the sake of it, plus many other gases like argon, hydrogen, etc. This is why astronomers see galaxies with clouds. It’s why the larger mountain top telescopes can see what we can’t.
    Think of it like an ocean above an ocean above an ocean, except in lighter form. We are a good example of the second sky. The first sky is the ocean itself and those bottom feeders of that ocean are us humans, bottom feeding in our ocean that to us, looks like air. In a nutshell, we probably have about another 5 or 6 skies all the way to the dome as our bubble seal.

    What is creating the heat for the Sun and how is it below 1700 C to make sure the glass doesn’t melt?

    The ice can’t melt as in blowing a hole in it, because the sun is creating it’s own extreme low pressure from the center of Earth. Like a vortex if you like. Because of this, the light does not act like it does on us. It has very little medium to travel through because it’s expanded everything in it’s path to near vacuum conditions.
    Because of this, everything is getting pushed into the vortex to try and equalize with it but never managing to do so, except to feed into it which is why the sun works in the first place. Basically the ocean is the fuel of life. Hydrogen. It’s got no real medium to actually be light until it reflects back into the atmosphere and super agitates it from that beam, which we naturally think should burn a hole in the dome. Obviously the dome will sort of melt but not in the way anyone would think. The sun is resonating, it’s acting like a field coil and motor. It’s more like a glass sculptor window cleaning the dome with a heat gun. You get dribbles as it melts but it refreezes immediately once that heat passes, like the sun does. It’s why the ice is made and break off from time to time and fall as comets, etc,

    How does it explain the north and south polar suns at the solstices? Especially the fact that there is 24-hour daylight at more than 23.5 from the north pole and 24-hour darkness at less than 23.5 from the south pole during the summer solstices? And vice verse for the winter one?

    Think of the spiral effect as it gains and loses energy whilst resonating in the Earth. At each point in time it loses enough to need recharging… like a capacitor where it builds a charge then releases it and has to build again. Like that only on a massive scale.

    Why does the Sun appear at its smallest size at noon and gradually bigger towards dawn and dusk?

    It’s an optical illusion:
    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=230

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Oh right. That is a different theory than you mentioned before. So there are real objects in the center and our sky dome is showing a reflection of them right? That’s not too far away from my own take on it I guess, although I wouldn’t call it a reflection in my own theory I suppose. I’m not sure about the rest, but I don’t agree with the last two questions, especially the official reason for the smaller/larger sun, that it is an optical illusion. I haven’t looked into it properly, as I want to see if latitude and season has an effect (as I imagine it does) but I can’t see how pictures like these below are because of this optical illusion.
      http://flashtrafficblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sunset.jpg
      http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/Smokey_Orange_Sunset_Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg
      http://i.space.com/images/i/000/023/019/wS4/sunset-from-concordia-1600.jpg?1350919416
      http://wallpaprezt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/african-sunset-photography.jpg

      That sun isn’t a little bit bigger or twice as big; it’s much bigger than that. If I put my head between my legs will the sun look 0.52 degrees wide as it does at noon???? Seriously. I mean, if it does, then I’ll stand corrected, but it does seem a bit incredulous at this point. There’s also the fact that they refer to an article by Bad astronomy to try and shore this up is another red flag. We will have to see when I look into this more.

      The only thing to figure out is the planets. They move a lot slower than the sun does near the center at +/-24 hours, so I’m guessing right now that they are not at the center, but orbit elliptically around the Sun at different distances.

      EDIT: I think I can guess another reason for those extra large suns above. Could it be the wavelength of the red/orange light is longer therefore making the Sun look bigger?

      View Comment
    • sully says:

      I’m new to these subjects, but I have always taken note that the various governments have massive and very secretive projects going in Antarctica. No idea what or why, but it’s a proven fact that they are very active down there. And they tell us zero about what they are up to…

      View Comment
  39. ObjectiveOne says:

    Check this out! Visible waves on the moon NOT caused by camera equipment. He’s got a number of videos of this occurring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yeah I’ve seen that. There’s too much f***ed up with the moon to not take notice.

      View Comment
      • ObjectiveOne says:

        Didn’t you say the moon might be made of metal? Ever hear of Walter C. Right’s book called Gravity is a Push? “According to Wright, the gravity we experience on earth does not come from our planet but instead from the Sun. The Sun is made of two types of metal, causing it to generate a magnetic field, but in the form of anti-matter, which explains how its magnetic field repels rather than attracts the planets.”
        I really think the moon is creating the sun.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I’ve skim read his book. The Sun is the only real object I can determine in the sky and so if the moon is a reflection, it would be of it and not the other way round.

          I very much doubt it is the Sun causing gravity, but rather it is the vortex motion of the aether in which the Sun resides which powers the sulfur lamp Sun. The Sun is made of a iron/nickel/cobalt alloy with a layer of schreibersite. These metals in the initial alloy are the very few known ones which can generate a magnetic field.

          The elements in the periodic table that are known to produce a magnetic field are three. These three elements are iron, cobalt and nickel. They are also known as transitional metals.
          http://www.ask.com/question/which-elements-in-the-periodic-table-are-magnetic

          This is way too much of a coincidence to me. I don’t know if you know this, but a non-moving permanent magnet does have a weak electric field – enough to light up an led lamp for example. Ampere noticed them according to this book page 33:
          http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=3935

          “We are familiar with AC & DC electricity but we are not so familiar with Amperian currents in
          magnetic material. Yet, Ampere told us much about them over 150 years ago.”

          And this seems to have been demonstrated by these two videos:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv_Yy62xtW4
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

          The Sun however is moving around in the center (creating dc current) and is by my very rough estimate, 22.9 miles across which should generate a more than ample electric field to power the lamp. The question is of course, where does this rotating vortex aether (electromagnetic field) come from? Is it a property of all hollow spaces, however small, and is just scaled up because of the size of the Earth cavity? Is it necessary that the hollow cavity have a crystal quartz wall (which the Earth’s crust is said to be mostly made of) and maybe holes in the poles? Or is this rotating em field (aether) an artificial creation, i.e we are inside a machine? Or both?

          My initial take would be that it is a “natural” phenomenon within all cavities that have holes in the poles, but it really does beg research and thinking caps on heads etc. This rotating em field has gravitational properties as the rotation pushes the em fields outwards which slow down (but mostly pass through) when they hit matter and it is this “hitting” of matter which is the gravitational effect. This means that gravity is a series of electromagnetic compression waves, which also means that gravity is longitudinal. This slowing down creates a concentration of longitudinal em fields at the periphery which is why we can see the stars at low altitude etc.

          Your basic presumption is a chicken and egg situation. Walter says chicken, whereas I say egg. The Sun is just made of metal which can be magnetic, but isn’t magnetic on its own. It needs something to make it magnetic. The Sun moves around the center due to something which it wouldn’t do it it weren’t there. That something is the rotating em field inside the Earth. If the 22.9 miles Sun where resting on the Earth, it could be made to become magnetic, but it wouldn’t create a gravitational field outside of the spin of its own molecules.

          I hope that clears things up. There is a lot more to say on this obviously, but perhaps another time.
          Maybe start here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonator

          View Comment
          • ObjectiveOne says:

            Yes, I subscribe to TheRealVerbz on Youtube and he has many videos of how magnets work and eddy currents, etc. I quoted from Wright’s book because I think he was on to something. I don’t think the sun is made of metal but I think the moon is. The sun is a transformer like Eric Dollard states. Basically, I believe it is the result of the moon’s energy transformed into light on the glass sky. I am curious to see if there are any similarities found when filming the moon and the sun through two separate telescopes at the same moment in time.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Have you read this?
            http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/

            The facts fit this theory above, but this doesn’t mean that it is true of course. This is the direction I am going in further research. It works very, very well with the known paths of the Sun, climate etc. Go to timeanddate.com and see the moon and sun positions at different times of year and try and make your theory work.
            http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

            Here are some questions for your theory:
            How does day/night work?
            How does dawn/dusk work with regards to the 90/270 angles of the rising and setting sun at the equinoxes?
            Where does the moon gets its energy to transform the energy to the glass?
            What process is causing the glass to create light and why in that one spot and not throughout?
            Why is the Sun producing light waves in just about the same amount and type as a sulfur lamp?
            What is creating the thermosphere?
            What is creating the heat for the Sun and how is it below 1700 C to make sure the glass doesn’t melt?
            How does it explain the north and south polar suns at the solstices? Especially the fact that there is 24-hour daylight at more than 23.5 from the north pole and 24-hour darkness at less than 23.5 from the south pole during the summer solstices? And vice verse for the winter one?
            Why does the Sun appear at its smallest size at noon and gradually bigger towards dawn and dusk?

            I can answer all these questions and a lot more really well if the Sun is a sulfur lamp rotating (wobbling) around the central axis of the Earth cavity. It’s time to go through the nuts and bolts of your theory with a fine comb and publish it… if you have the time.

            View Comment
  40. Saros says:

    I was just trying to find a picture of the Moon during solar eclipse to see if it is really the Moon that covers the Sun’s disc. Well, it is a bit unusual because it doesn’t seem conclusive. I remember seeing the 1999 full solar eclipse in Europe, and I don’t remember recognizing the Moon as the object that blocked the sunlight. After all, there is something called earthshine, and we should be able to see the features of the Moon surface even during the day at least most of the time, so how come then when the Moon blocks the Sun we don’t see Moon’s features? We don’t see them then or before it does. This is highly suspicious, as it suggests that it is not the Moon that causes sun eclipses, which would give credit to the idea that the Moon is simply a lens flare or some sort of reflection of the Sun or another object. Has anyone seen the Moon as it normally appears when visible during the day to actually cross the Sun’s disc and cause an eclipse? Are there any reliable photos of that? Check out that photo – http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/361/overrides/arctic-solar-eclipse-june-2011-starting_36186_600x450.jpg The ‘Moon’ actually appears transparent, how could it be if it is a solid object and not a reflection of some sort? Where is the earthshine on the Moon during full solar eclipse?

    View Comment
  41. sumstuff52 says:

    The more i use stellarium software the more it looks like the moon is a reflection of the SUN “DISC” and the angle the sun disc is at, when i use the forward button viewing the west sky and as the days go by the moon acts like a lens flare coming from the sun reflecting off the firmament, try stellarium and see this pattern and the cosmos illusion, as it stands in my mind is the military is in control of the moon and universe illusion through advanced holographic tech, just because they can, masonic mind control through holographic magic, cover up the old universe illusion and start their own cosmic illusion program, that’s why the moon and stars and planets are so bright, just some holographic technology and it has errors showing it’s all man made tech UP there, the universe is/WAS more like ornaments on a xmas tree, a navigation map above for us

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very interesting theory Sumstuff about our lens flare moon. I wonder if the “rock-like” (but not really) surface of the moon is the inside surface of the Sun reflected through lens flare? 1. The crater marks on the moon have always been said by the electric universe guys to be caused by electricity which would fit the electric sulfur lamp Sun perfectly. 2. As well as the fact that the moon reflects light as a lens or bowl shaped object and not a sphere – another match.

      Edit: 3. Also, we never see the dark side of the moon which would also fit the inside of the Sun theory. 4. The moon looking a little bit like microscopic polished metal also fits as the sulfur lamp Sun is made of a iron/nickel/cobalt alloy. 5. It is also the same size as the Sun! Come on. This has to be it!

      The only issue I have is where are the carbon electrodes and sulfur filament? Maybe they aren’t visible when the reflection is projected as they are glowing? Only the highly reflective schreibersite surface layer reflects the light and hence it is the only part visible?

      I’m going to go with this theory as the leading one for now. Well done Sumstuff, you’ve nailed it. Why didn’t I think of this before? lol! 🙂

      View Comment
    • Saros says:

      I don’t know why you should mention that it is a man-made illusion. It spoils and discredits the idea that the Moon is a reflection of the Sun on the firmament. There is absolutely no evidence that the Moon is bright because someone is projecting it. Not to mention that it contradicts the original idea suggested by you that it is a reflection of the Sun. Furthermore, even if it were possible to project the Moon as a hologram, it doesn’t make any sense to do that as no one actually cares, so it would serve no purpose whatsoever plus given the human utter helplessness with all things space related this seems even more ludicrous. You overestimate the military and the human abilities to control the environment. In my opinion they can’t control anything, especially space where they have never been! The illusion is that they have any power at all, not that they control everything.

      View Comment
      • Pretty sure the moon is more than a reflection/projection/hologram. I do admit it’s possible that they are projecting a hologram OVER the real moon. My guess is that they have mounted surveillance equipment on the real moon and don’t want amateur astronomers picking up on the apparatuses on its surface, which would indicate the grossly exaggerated size of the moon. (from 2,000 miles wide to perhaps about 50-100 miles wide). But because I ALWAYS filter my thought process with a teleological and eschatological lens, I’ve concluded that the moon will magnetically lock with the sun when the sun stops, causing a shield that will protect the moon-shaded area on the ground from scorching up (I see this happening over Australia.) This is why Pine Gap is very indicative of a massive underground convergence portal that the precognitive powers that be have been constructing for decades.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGdIdvG6urM

        I encourage you guys, WH, Sumstuff, et al, to view your deductions based on the same teleological and eschatological filters, whether they be found in scripture, or in common sense causal reasonings. Understand the teleology encoded throughout all of nature, and see the intelligence behind it all. It’s good to make conjectures and as the case with me, I’ve made mistakes in the past, for without the process of reduction of uncertainty and making mistakes, the truth would never get resolved. To everything there is a PURPOSE. If you put the purpose of visualizing a immanent new world Kingdom, you can separate yourselves from inferior thoughts and emotional bitterness towards the powers that be, whether they be masons or Jesuits or whomever, and come to a unifying mature position in harmonic accord with your Creator.

        View Comment
  42. Sheila says:

    Check out my video, “Glitches in the sky matrix caught on camera”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXrtSrnW30

    I think the “melting moon” portion of the above vid should be added as a .gif to this page…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for that Sheila. I ‘ll have to update the vids at some point in the future and I’ll include that one too.

      I love the one with the cloaked triangle stealth bomber type aircraft. This chemtrailing must be very important to them with all the resources they are using, but I’m not sure why.

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52 says:

        THEY have been pumping all the same elements that make up an LCD screen, the skies and in every corner of our homes have this floating around, and there is an ORB MIST? in home surveillance videos, some fairy entities and orbs in most of these videos out there, things i laughed at and ridiculed are appearing, it would be hard to fake all this footage worldwide

        View Comment
    • ObjectiveOne says:

      That orb is the nose of the plane. The bottom of the plane is invisible but it’s there. It’s an optical illusion, like a mirage.

      View Comment
  43. ObjectiveOne says:

    I think the moon is a reflection on the glass sky. The actual moon is at the center of Earth. The sun is EM energy coming from the center (possibly the “core” that we’ve been told about) that transforms into light on the glass sky. All the stars and planets are either sono-luminescent bubbles or crystal spheres. Everything is swirling around and projected on the glass sky. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDQmArjgnJA

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Interesting. I’ll have to think about that one. Certainly looks promising. The stars are the most interesting and so full of contradiction. Such a puzzle. I might post a short article after the next, outlining the pieces of evidence and let other minds try and fathom it. I’m looking into it having something to do with the Sun’s bendy light, but I’m not sure.

      View Comment
  44. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve read that imitation is flattery, but a mention of the source of his evidence would be nice. Pity Conspiracydude didn’t credit me for “his” research.

    Very cheeky.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRcaIpJlmFI

    View Comment
  45. sumstuff52 says:

    MAKE NOTE: I predict 15th February 2014 there will be a holographic orb projector at the 7 o’clock position below the moon moving in sync with it and should see it close to the moon on 14th and 16th also
    In NE Canada and USA we will see this at 7 o’clock position

    View Comment
  46. Mo says:

    Hi, at first let me thank you for your invaluable work, it`s really opened my eyes to some things.
    However, I guess it would be quite weird if there wouldn`t be popping up new questions with each yet found answer 😉 So thx for reading through a few, much appreciated:

    1. I just stumbled upon a video which allegedly shows moon footage, you can allegedly see the moon rover there, too. It`s very well and convincing made. How do you suppose they did it?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKeTF7S4QPg

    2. How do you explain geostationary satellites? Or do you think they don`t exist, anyway? Which proof do we have for them existing anyway?

    3. I get a lot of questions regarding the “heat problem”, do you have a possible explanation on how the earth does not yet has mutated into one gigantic oven ;-)?

    4. I also got a thought which could possibly work in favor of the concave earth theory, or rather against the idea of the official satellite fairytale: Aren`t radio signals bounced off by the ionosphere, so they can reach further distances on the convex earth? Now how do the signals reach to the satellites nowadays, and aren`t bounced off? Or am I totally wrong here? Do you maybe know how those different waves/wavelenghts work regarding their passage through the several layers of atmosphere, especially the ionosphere? So, could there be another toehold, maybe?

    Anyway, thanks for your work, you`re doing a great great job!

    Many greetings,

    Mo

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      2. Great timing. LSC reckons (and I agree) that geostationary statelittes are attached to the glass. It solves the ionosphere and thermosphere contradiction.

      3. I’ll come back to you on that. I’ve 3 min left at the library lol.

      4. Spot on. I think they use wavelenghts(medium wave?) that should bounce of the ionosphere. Must go and thanks for the comment.

      View Comment
      • Mo says:

        Thanks so far, WH.

        2. However, isn`t the very characteristic of a geostationary satelllite, from a stationary observers view from earth, to be stationary as well, as they allegedly have a geostationary orbit? Hence they can`t be applied to the glass sky, as they hence would move along with the celestial sphere? Or did I misunderstand it completely there, and according to your theory the glass sky is stationary, while the celestial sphere within has an orbit? Then geostastionary satellites would be those being attached, but then I got the same problem with “ordinary” satellites lol, you get my point? How do they orbit earth then? I`ve occasionally seen satellites orbiting over the night sky, or let us call it “light points” more securely ;-), but at that time I never payed attention whether they all might follow the same direction (that`s what was my first guess when initially (mis)understanding that satellites are attached to the glass. But just forget about that one ;-))

        LSC in his video about ATS shows some pictures which show some kind of reflection of a satellite against a medium (possibly the glass sky), and an article about ATS, do you got a link to those maybe?

        Again, thanks WH!

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          The light points in the sky could be just low earth orbit asteroids. At least that was Scud’s and Simon Shack’s theory. I might have mixed up my terminology with satelites (I don’t have time to check right now). There is one type which moves extremely slowly which Steve has found indicting that they are lodged to the glass in the sky. It has the word “applied” in the name. Ahh yes, you mentioned it ATS… I left that theory with Steve as I don’t have the time to look into it further. Sounds good though.

          3. To be very brief, the Sun has a sulfur filament glowing at 5500 C in the very near center (within maybe about 1.2 degrees at the Decemebr Solstice if my calculating guesses are correct.. shrugs shoulders). The further out from the center, the less heat until it is a mere 200 C about 10km from the glass. Either the last 10km has the heat reduced to 0 at the glass, or the glass absorbs and radiates the rest. A NASA fella claimed that the heat is always present, but at night this can’t be unless something is radiating it (ie. the glass). So maybe the N Korean Sun landing at night is true lol 🙂 (Joke) and there is no heat present at night?

          View Comment
  47. sumstuff52 says:

    Several people are asking me how to see this moon/orb phenomena that has been going on since 2007, here’s a simple guide i use

    *Here’s what to do when trying to identify the Moon and the ORBital Projector(s)*

    *These ORBS/orbitals in the sky have a RGB palette these are the dominant colors in most holographic orb projectors*
    When the moon is full is the best time to view this moon/orb cycle and also a clear sky, sometimes these projectors/orbs can be seen through a thin haze and some light clouds they are that close, ok, when viewing the moon look at the orbitals/object around the moon and the position and distance, take note, next day or two do the same and take note of orbitals distance and brightness, as the days progress you will see as the moon’s luminosity diminishes through the lunar cycle the orbitals seem further away and there is less light from the orbitals also, as the moons luminosity is at 10-15% or lower it will be hard to distinguish which of the orbs is the projector because of their great distance away from the moon BUT expand your FOV and you will see these orbitals are still in sync with the moon, and then again as the moons luminosity increases again the orbs will appear closer right up the the full moon cycle again, and it continues on in a loop, alot of the time the orbitals are at 7 o’clock position, it depends on where the cresting is, if moons crest is below, the orb might be at the top of the moon or vice versa, anyways look for the full moon or about 70% luminosity and the orbitals should still be close enough to identify if your a little late in the moon’s cycle, remember to take note of where these orbs are and you will see these seem further away as moons luminosity decreases but still all moving in sync, These holographic ORBS have a RGB palette these are the dominant colors in most sightings, sometimes the moon projectors don’t show this but a white/orange combo, nonetheless they seem to be having an effect on the moon’s luminosity, some days my photos and videos gets washed out from the high luminosity from the moon when the orbs are closer to the moon

    I hope this helps WH, it is strange what is happening but it is happening, i thought they were light projectors for awhile but these 180 degree moon flips in a few hours have me thinking a holographic projection on maybe an advanced SATELOON, maybe the sateloon is skinned with a moon surface and the orbitals are light projectors, what a head trip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqaGOyh0B3E

    View Comment
  48. sumstuff52 says:

    try these for a laugh, seriously, the joke has been going on for awhile, see the patterns in these videos

    “OCCULTation” Of Moon and JupitORB 25/26 Dec 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgNBW4GHV4

    NOTHING In The Sky But The HOLOGRAM MOON And Ii’s PROJECTOR Dec 7 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1TF90fzUHI

    View Comment
  49. sumstuff52 says:

    Oh the lunacy of it all 🙂

    Hologram Moon Projectors Greatest Hits Vol.1 Dec 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh0qT-W21W0

    Hologram Moon Projectors Greatest Hits Vol.2 Dec 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlD12_1yPCw

    View Comment
  50. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I found a new video on the moon, which if real begs an explanation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmMLVydV0GY

    Disappearing moon? Could this have something to do with the aether density?

    View Comment
  51. sumstuff52 says:

    Watch and see how close the moon and it’s orbitals are to us, as the camera zooms in/out the moon and orb pan out/in close/far also notice that the orbs in some of these videos shine through the clouds and haze, even though were told these orbs are jupiter, the moon and orbs are very close to each other in our lower atmosphere as you can tell by watching any of these videos, the last video is one i have created which shows the holographic beam portraying the moon image

    i cannot post the links i have, not showing up, here’s the playlist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9c4ch8EQcg&list=PLWRzUSpfFKZ9Gf0Z4BMk6H3CpBVG2bIsd

    View Comment
  52. Marcin says:

    Hello humans :p
    I’m so glad I have found this website ! So many theories!
    Also I’ve got almost a year recordings of the Moon and the Chemtrails!
    Can’t wait to see new footage tho!
    Keep up the good work!

    YT:Macek677

    View Comment
  53. sumstuff52 says:

    Hello WH, i have been watching in the SOUTH WEST sky here in halifax nova scotia the last 2 nights at 5 pm there is a HUGE ORB just sitting there just above the horizon, quite a distance away from the moon BUT in perfect alignment and moving in sync with the moon, *i can see this ORB through the haze and clouds even though the sky and moon was clouded over*, this ORB (not a planet or star) was so bright and big in the sky it cannot be missed, to me it looks like a holographic projector at full output, seems like these orbs are brighter when at a fair distance away from the moon and less luminous when closer to the moon

    My conclusion is the moon is a holographic projection in which the ORBitals projecting the moon are brighter at a long distance from the moon and less brighter at a closer distance to the moon, i have been paying attention 🙂

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The holographic projector idea is an interesting one. Why stop at the moon though? What if all of existence were a projection?

      View Comment
      • sumstuff52 says:

        Physics breakthrough: Is the universe a giant hologram?
        http://rt.com/news/space-evidence-universe-hologram-195/

        funny you mention that, all of a sudden theres a few popular users posting in youtube about physicists saying the universe is a huge hologram, interesting article and makes sense NOW, it seems the sky is littered with orbs and or holographic projectors, that huge bright orb in the SW sky at the horizon sure is a give away

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I quite liked the hologram theory of existence when I first read about it but it was too far away from my everyday understanding that I couldn’t bridge the gap and so left it there as a “maybe”. Now however, I may have made inroads a little bit with a wild presumption from data from my next article. Very early tentative days yet though. We’ll see; it may lead to a dead end.

          Just to be sure, have you definitely ruled out the projectors in the sky aren’t bright stars or Venus etc.?

          EDIT: I won’t mention the holographic idea in the next article, just stuff that fits with evidence I can be relatively sure of.

          View Comment
          • sumstuff52 says:

            Just to be sure, have you definitely ruled out the projectors in the sky aren’t bright stars or Venus etc.?

            Oh yes, these projectors stay at the same distance away from the projected image, and move right in sync or almost perfect orbit, i have been seeing this same movement over and over since i’ve been watching, unless venus or the stars can orbit this moon 🙂

            in my playlist holographic moon projectors, it is so obvious that those things around the moon are not planets or stars orbiting the moon or moon projection, there is so many of these videos out worldwide different dates and all showing the same pattern

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’m dying to see them. Sum, can you give me a quick link to a video that has managed to capture one or more of them.

            Cheers.

            WH

            View Comment
  54. sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

    Last night the moon’s hologram PROJECTORS were at 11 AND 5 o’clock position for SEVERAL HOURS and at the same distance, the moon was bright enough to cause lens flaring, last xmas it was a 3 day event, that’s when i took notice and it’s the SAME configuration as today’s moon with holographic projectors at 11 and 5 o’clock position, LOOK UP take note and look again in a few hours you’ll see the fakery right before your own eyes, the military has orb technology since the 1980’s and is well advanced now, looks to me like our old sky illusion, moon and all has disappeared and is now being replicated by these colourfulorbs, the whole sky is full of these colourful orbs, sometimes these orbs have a hard time keeping their star mimicking constellation positions they move a bit up down left right sometimes, i don’t remember seeing stars/planets flash pink,purple, BROWN a couple years ago

    Also there is NO MOON in any of the stratospheric balloon videos, i went through every video, there is one that is questionable but too small and dark to be a moon

    View Comment
  55. Saros says:

    Here is another curious phenomenon:
    A rare celestial illusion of “triple suns” occurred in the sky over Chifeng, in northern China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region on Friday morning. The sun, accompanied by two smaller twins, suddenly popped up in the sky, and the triple suns appeared surrounded by arched rainbow-like halos. The illusion is actually deemed a legitimate astronomical phenomenon, also known as a “phantom sun” or “ice halo.” It only appears when ice crystals create high clouds in the air around 6,000 meters above ground, and produce reflected sunlight.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgBkglALi-g

    View Comment
  56. sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

    The Moon May Not Be What You Think It Is
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=626i61O5q54

    Published on Oct 25, 2013 by YT user Crrow

    Here is another mind bending moon observation caught on film. After a year of close observation I can tell you – you do not know the moon! Welcome to the Death Star footage. ALSO, WATCH CAREFULLY, THIS IS NOT THE CAMERA. THE CAMERA IS DIGITAL, THE WAVE IS ORGANIC AND THE CAMERA PANS ABOVE THE WAVE AND THEN THE WAVE CATCHES UP TO THE CAMERA.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Wild Sam, absolutely wild. At first I thought it could be the way the camera captures the video, but as the user says, the camera is panning up and the wave is behind and then catches up.

      I have absolutely no idea what to make of it except that it is yet another very, very strange optical phenomenon of the moon.

      When I eventually finish the next article I am still researching, I’ll update a few of the old articles, like the above one, with the new material you, others, and myself have found.

      Thanks a lot for this and keep them coming.

      WH

      View Comment
    • Saros says:

      Sometimes I think the Moon is a reflected image of the other (dark) side of the Sun which is being lit by the reflected image of the Sun. We don’t see the real Sun, we only see its reflected image, and its reflection lits the back of the real Sun, which is, in turn, reflected and projected as the Moon we all see. Here is a rough drawing of the idea:

      http://imgur.com/GMzCctL

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Perfectly possible. I know that sometimes the moon can be seen at the same time as the sun, but a reflected image could also be seen at the same time as the original of course. This actually needs more looking into.

        My personal opinion is that we actually see the real sun, but not the moon, only because we feel the heat from the Sun; but that is no valid reason on its own as heat can also reflect.

        I actually really like the idea that the moon could be the reflected back of the Sun. It would explain the half moon and all the rest of its angles being explained as a convex shape (lens) turning around a central point.

        View Comment
      • Ian Goss says:

        Well, the moon does appear the same size as the sun. Its an odd one, cos it seems to affect tides, and focaults pendulum at lunar eclipses.

        There are old astrological ideas about the nodes of the moon being important. They are the places in the sky, where if the moon crosses them, it goes into shadow. One node shadows the moon, the other shadows the sun.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          That’s interesting. I’ve been reading a little about the nodes of a wave. I wonder if there is a connection. I bet you it has to do with the aether and the way it operates or criss-crosses perhaps which gives us these gravitational (tides) anomalies.

          View Comment
    • Saros says:

      In my opinion, the YT video is fake. I think so because of the fact that the Moon doesn’t move in the video. Anyone who has observed the Moon knows that it moves very quickly and the camera needs to be adjusted every 10 seconds. In addition, I would like to address some of the so-called pacman Moon photos and the Moon having an angular shape. I have personally seen the Moon that way through a digital camera while trying to take a picture of the Moon through the eyepiece of a telescope. If you don’t stabilize the camera to be directly in front of the eyepiece it simply eats out parts of the Moon and it looks the same way as in the photos.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Fair enough about the pacman moon.

        Yeah, any youtube video could be fake. That’s for sure lol. I thought he only edited a small fraction of the total time though. Having said that, I have no idea how long he filmed the moon. He says a year in total, but is that 10 minutes one night, 5 minutes another. How much footage does he have and has he looked through it all?

        My first thought was that it was a camera recording anomaly, but I’m open to it being another weird optical phenomenon of the moon as there are so many.

        It is an interesting video all the same.

        View Comment
        • Saros says:

          Actually, I looked at the video again, and it seems I was wrong about the Moon not moving. It just seemed that way at first, but I guess I should retract that. The wave is very peculiar and we do need more details from the author of the video to form an opinion on its authenticity.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’m at a loss about the wave too. A few ideas:

            1. camera anomaly
            2. the way light works
            3. holographic projection
            4. optical illusion
            5. an aether characteristic
            6. fake video

            ???

            View Comment
  57. Elliott says:

    whoah this blog is great i really like studying your posts.

    Keep up the good work! You know, a lot of individuals are
    hunting round for this information, you could aid them greatly.

    View Comment
  58. Dr MooTwahz says:

    Riteous info here. Glad to have found it (thru Steve…thanks mate). I figger the MOON to be the work of them NASA cats: lites, camera n action (movie). You ever notice thatz how they make the Moon in cartoons? Great big, old Floodlite or Spotlite? Like how the BATMAN symbol gits pitched onto the Sky too. SATELLITE/CAMERA Trickery n whatnot. Thats the real reason for the Satellites in the sky if you ask me. Tomfoolery on the eyes. STROBE effects, for example. The Eyes can only handle so many FRAMES per second. After that its no telling what they can make you SEE (n believe). Who are you going to believe? Them or your LYING eyes is what it comes down to. Keep hitting em with this truth you got going here!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Hi Dr moo, welcome to my blog. Your theories are no less valid than what NASA show us. I personally think the glowing white dots are asteroids, but hey, all we really know is that we are being told a load of nonsense.

      View Comment
  59. I held for a long time the moon was bowl-shaped.
    Not sure about that anymore tho.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Hi Stevie, thanks for dropping in.

      It’s possible. Someone else claimed it to be a lens. Either way, I don’t really care as it is likely a projection in my book. It is definitely very strange at least.

      Steve, thanks a million for the glass in the sky theory. If it hadn’t been for you, I could have no way figured out that the Sun was a sulfur lamp.

      I’m busy with the next article which is another mammoth one. We’re getting closer.

      View Comment