On the other hand, the "earth shadow" theory held by modern science is also full of holes. Here are some issues with that theory:
1) it's been docuмented by astronomers, and there are videos out there showing, that one can see stars through the non-lit "face" of the moon
2) there was a scientist in the 1950s who claimed to have proven that the moon is made of plasma (which would explain #1)
3) eclipses take place during the day (the so-called selenelion) which cannot be explained by the earth's shadow theory
4) I've seen the video of an eclipse viewed from a plane where the shadow angles prove that the moon was way closer than 260,000 miles away
5) people can see Tycho's crater with a pair of binoculars, a feature said to be 80km in diameter ... from 260,000 miles away (you could not see something that small from that distance)
6) moonlit areas are actually colder than areas next to it that are not lit by moonlight
7) nobody's really come up with a workable explanation for the tides (even Newton admitted that the moon theory didn't work)
8) the fact that we see and have for centuries seen the exact same "face" of the moon. I personally find the explanation that the moon rotates (to the second) at the exact same rate that it revolves the earth completely implausible. Even if it were a second off, it would have changed its features over the years
9) I find it implausible that the sun and moon are roughly the same size (explained by the allegation that the sun is exactly 400x larger than the moon AND at the same time exactly 400x farther away ... and what about the fact that our distance from the sun allegedly varies)
1) Sure, I believe people have taken pictures of the moon and seen some dots in the dark area. It has not at all been established that those dots are stars. Could be dust on the lens, or thermal noise. Real astronomers know about these two different, more likely explanations.
2) I'll assume for the sake of argument that someone over 60 years ago made the claim you assert. So what? It was wrong. The moon is solid. Even if you emotionally need to disbelieve manned missions to the moon, there have definitely been probes, and there are now man-made objects on the moon surface.
3) As has previously been explained to you, it is possible to have a lunar eclipse during daylight. Also solar eclipses.
4) Too bad you can't or won't link to anything about this case. Ever considered doing some amateur astronomy and measuring the distance to the moon, yourself? Do an experimental observation?
5) How do you know you couldn't see something as "small" as Tycho's crater from the distance? Could you make out a person's head against a contrasting background from 1 mile away, with good binoculars? (The crater is also surrounded by a bunch of light-colored streaks that stand out and spread over a huge area - you should be able to make THAT out with normal vision.)
6) Go ahead, link to one "cold moonlight" experiment YOU think is valid. Every such "experiment" I've seen on that topic had obvious experimental errors.
7) Even if your claim about Newton were correct, don't you think people have investigated the tides once or twice since Newton?
8) So what if you find it implausible? You've been told it's due to tidal lock.
9) Again, so what if you find it implausible? It's also not exact - we do get ring eclipses.
4) fact that the earth's atmosphere doesn't get sucked off the planet by the vacuum of space (I use the term "suck" loosely because that's now how vacuum's work), but there's no way that would happen unless the atmosphere is enclosed by something (aka the firmament). Also, you can't have air pressure without a container
There are other planets with atmospheres. Their atmospheres don't get "sucked" off them. We can see them, and they're not enclosed.
Lad's other claims are too vague to discuss.
Topic: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign (Read 54418 times)