Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:16 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Wonderful Lunacy Eh ''Butch''. Well Debunk this then. The Moon is its own light source. Lets see who's the Loon now. All this time we've been thinking the moon is lit by the sun and along comes YouTube user Lorenzo Acerra with his 2 minute video to completely turn science on it's head. That man must be an absolute genius.

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Wonderful Lunacy Eh ''Butch''. Well Debunk this then. The Moon is its own light source. Lets see who's the Loon now. All this time we've been thinking the moon is lit by the sun and along comes YouTube user Lorenzo Acerra with his 2 minute video to completely turn science on it's head. That man must be an absolute genius.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:18 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

All this time we've been thinking the moon is lit by the sun and along comes YouTube user Lorenzo Acerra with his 2 minute video to completely turn science on it's head. That man must be an absolute genius.

Did you not know the name of Lorenzo Acerra? He's mentioned in the same breath as Einstein, Hawking, and Newton...

...That's Donald Einstein, George Hawking, and Arthur Newton.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:32 am  

When Stanley goes off on one, I'm reminded of a quote by the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

"People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup."

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am  

bren2k wrote:

When Stanley goes off on one, I'm reminded of a quote by the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

"People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup."

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:29 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Wonderful Lunacy Eh ''Butch''. Well Debunk this then. The Moon is its own light source. Lets see who's the Loon now. Your problem, like Mulder, is you want to believe. This means you have a total inability to critically examine anything. If it fits your preconceptions then you swallow it hook line and sinker. I don't give a shiit whether the moon is its own light source, or lit by the sun, or whatever, I only want to establish the facts. If the moon was its own light source, great for it. But it isn't. The explanation for the illusion you so want to be true (curvilinear perspective) is not simple to explain, because it is counter-intuitive, but 100% understandable and coldly obvious, as long as you are prepared to read and understand it. That of course excludes you, but for anyone else who may be interested in the answer to what is indeed, superficially, a curiosity, is very well explained here: http://muddycolors.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... ctive.html HTH

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Wonderful Lunacy Eh ''Butch''. Well Debunk this then. The Moon is its own light source. Lets see who's the Loon now. Your problem, like Mulder, is you want to believe. This means you have a total inability to critically examine anything. If it fits your preconceptions then you swallow it hook line and sinker. I don't give a shiit whether the moon is its own light source, or lit by the sun, or whatever, I only want to establish the facts. If the moon was its own light source, great for it. But it isn't. The explanation for the illusion you so want to be true (curvilinear perspective) is not simple to explain, because it is counter-intuitive, but 100% understandable and coldly obvious, as long as you are prepared to read and understand it. That of course excludes you, but for anyone else who may be interested in the answer to what is indeed, superficially, a curiosity, is very well explained here: http://muddycolors.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... ctive.html HTH

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:55 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

No wrong, it's not always right.But in some case's it's bang on the money. I only post true evidence.

Hmm. Let's see, shall we

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Where the supposed Globe's tilt is 66.6°,

Nonsense. The Earths axis is tilted in relation to the ecliptic plane at approx. 23.5 degrees. You made your absurd figure up.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

...and the Moon is supposed to be orbiting the supposed Globe travelling at 666MPH.

Oops! The speed is actually 2,288 mph. You made yours up.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Oooh them numbers look a bit Masonic to me.

But your invented numbers are just a figment of your imagination, though.

Like your delusion that you "only post true evidence", as is very clear just from the above.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:04 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nonsense. The Earths axis is tilted in relation to the ecliptic plane at approx. 23.5 degrees. You made your absurd figure up..

Hahaha. The supposed Earth's tilt is 23.4° and not 23.5° yeah. So that leaves 66.6° off horizontal 90°. Hmmm very much Masonic numerology being brainwashed into the hogwash called Science.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:50 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Hahaha. The supposed Earth's tilt is 23.4° and not 23.5° yeah. So that leaves 66.6° off horizontal 90°. Hmmm very much Masonic numerology being brainwashed into the hogwash called Science.

It is 23.5 yeah. Every number there is will leave 66.6 if you randomly pick that number + 66.6 as your starting point as you just did. But that missing 0.1 completely demolishes your frankly silly point.

Did you read and accept the debunk of your shiny moon delusion, btw, or is it too embarrassing for you to mention again?

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:51 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: It is 23.5 yeah. Every number there is will leave 66.6 if you randomly pick that number + 66.6 as your starting point as you just did. But that missing 0.1 completely demolishes your frankly silly point. Did you read and accept the debunk of your shiny moon delusion, btw, or is it too embarrassing for you to mention again? To prove the fact that the supposed axis tilt is 23.4°. Again proving the evidence I provide is always the truth.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: It is 23.5 yeah. Every number there is will leave 66.6 if you randomly pick that number + 66.6 as your starting point as you just did. But that missing 0.1 completely demolishes your frankly silly point. Did you read and accept the debunk of your shiny moon delusion, btw, or is it too embarrassing for you to mention again? To prove the fact that the supposed axis tilt is 23.4°. Again proving the evidence I provide is always the truth.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:50 am  

Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.4 degrees and decreasing.

So what happens when it is not 23.4 and therefore your 66.6 theory doesn't work?