-
This was taken one hour ago.
What the heck?
https://imgur.com/a/RbvyRvM
-
More
https://imgur.com/a/zjXUPRM
-
More
https://imgur.com/a/Zey3U3H
-
Can't see it where I am.
-
I went out several times today and it only got cloudier as the evening progressed. I was unable to get a shot of it. :cussing:
-
It was a hoax.
After the pics went viral yesterday, a YouTuber named The Faking Hoaker took credit.
Never could see the moon yesterday, too many clouds.
-
.
idiots :fryingpan:
.
.
What do you expect to see, a full moon? A quarter moon
"Never could see the moon yesterday, too many clouds."
So if not for the clouds, what would you be able to see? Where in the sky would you look?
Do you know anything about astronomy? I guess not you're only a flat-earther. I.e., an idiot.
-
.
Smedley gets slapped down again!! So funny. :jester:
-
It was a hoax.
.
Right. It was a hoax. And it was obviously a hoax to everyone who saw it.
Except for flat-earthers like Smedley who don't know where to look for the moon, or what they should expect to see.
So they don't know a hoax when they see one.
.
Because for flat-earthers believing in a hoax is par for the course. They believe in hoaxes day in and day out, 24/7.
.
Here's another wake-up call for you to be shocked with:
.
FLAT-EARTHISM IS A HOAX, TOO!! :laugh1:
.
-
I went out several times today and it only got cloudier as the evening progressed. I was unable to get a shot of it. :cussing:
.
And so you're all p'd-off because you couldn't "get a shot of it" -- the moon!
You actually went outside on June 12th hoping to get a shot of the MOON! During daylight hours?! Into the EVENING!!
No doubt you kept looking for the moon after the sun set.
Oh, but the sun never really sets, right? I mean, it keeps going around in a circle over your "flat" earth, right?
And now -- get this, it's too much -- you're upset at the CLOUDS for their natural existence.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why in the name of all right reason would you expect to get a shot of the MOON on June 12th, 2018, during the daytime?!?!
And where, pray tell, in the sky would you be looking for the MOON after sunset?!?!
.
Correction -- not "in the name of all right reason" because flat-earthers do not practice right reason.
.
Unbelievable. .................... or NOT.
.
I really shouldn't be surprised at this. I should expect this kind of insanity. It should be expected of flattards.
-
.
Smedley, happenby and all the other flat-earthers are ruby-red embarrassed.
They got smacked down real bad and they ran away to hide from this one.
.
Serious mistake. :fryingpan: :jester: :facepalm:
-
.
BTW for the RECORD, here is a CathInfo photo file copy of the stupid shot these flattards got all upset over.
Incredible. June 12th, 2018, and they thought the moon could possibly look like THIS!!!!!!
.
-
.
I know, I know, I'd be embarrassed too, if this happened to me.
In fact, if I had been a flat-earther this would be the last straw.
I would be like, I can't believe I was stupid enough to buy into this flattardom garbage.
.
Now THAT, I can understand. ;D
-
I would be like, I can't believe I was stupid enough to buy into this flattardom garbage.
So how does one hoax picture invalidate all of the flat earth arguments? I wish you could discuss this issue rationally.
-
Not in the least bit embarrassed.
Hoax photos happen.
You are, however, hysterical as usual.
-
So how does one hoax picture invalidate all of the flat earth arguments? I wish you could discuss this issue rationally.
.
Were you deceived as well?
Did you go outside in the afternoon and evening of June 12th, 2018, looking for the moon?
.
Let's start with the basics, to be "rational," as you say, all right?
.
Do you see any problem for anyone on earth, going outside June 12th, expecting to see the moon in the picture I posted?
.
Not precisely that exact moon, but any moon that in any way looks anything like the one in the photo.
.
If so, then make a complete description here, for the record, why you would see a problem with that.
.
And if you don't see any problem with that, then explain why you don't see any problem.
.
The same goes for Smedley, who was deceived. Don't try to deny it, we all know you were deceived.
.
Maybe you can explain all the reasons you thought you would be able to see some kind of moon image that looks somehow similar in any way to the one in the photo.
.
Just for the record, I'll post all four photos below, that had Smedley and happenby all tied up in knots. Sound good?
Just in case you missed them, so you wouldn't know what we're talking about.
.
-
.
I will now proceed to demonstrate the ridiculousness of flat-earthism in one argument, right here.
.
In case you're entirely confused with what I'm asking for, take the first photo, below, and look carefully at the shadows on the chimney image. Look at how the chimney's corner is in front of the so-called moon. Compare the image of the moon to the image of the shadows on the chimney in the foreground. I shouldn't have to give you any more clues than this.
.
BTW (left single) click on the image below to view an enlarged image.
.
The ball is in your court. Flat-earthers unite! You get exactly one chance, and this is IT!
.
Go on your flattard blogs world wide, if you must, and summon all the help you can get, because you're going to need it.
.
-
.
Fascinating. No replies, after 3 days. Not enough time? Hmmm?
Where's Ladislaus now? Too many difficult questions? There are a LOT more difficult questions.
.
We have to start somewhere.
.
The CI platform keeps track of views, and right now nobody has viewed the photos I posted above.
2, 0, 1, 0, 2 = the views from MY OWN clicking on those photo uploads.
Therefore, it is clear that nobody is interested in any "rational discussion" as Ladislaus would say they are.
Not even Ladislaus is interested, so that means Ladislaus is a liar. Prove me wrong.
.
Where is the impudent Smedley Butler who claims to not be embarrassed?
Too busy posting on other threads in order to avoid this one where he knows he has NO CHANCE.
Go get help from your buddies: it's not going to help.
.
The ball's in your court.
.
-
.
I will now proceed to demonstrate the ridiculousness of flat-earthism in one argument, right here.
.
In case you're entirely confused with what I'm asking for, take the first photo, below, and look carefully at the shadows on the chimney image. Look at how the chimney's corner is in front of the so-called moon. Compare the image of the moon to the image of the shadows on the chimney in the foreground. I shouldn't have to give you any more clues than this.
.
BTW (left single) click on the image below to view an enlarged image.
.
The ball is in your court. Flat-earthers unite! You get exactly one chance, and this is IT!
.
Go on your flattard blogs world wide, if you must, and summon all the help you can get, because you're going to need it.
.
.
Flat-earthers are terrified of this post!
.
(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fburst.shopifycdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fterrified-man-portrait_925x.jpg&sp=8e2a4b6ca7df81e4eb3e4c4d4c0d0d61) (https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Flifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimages%2Fmade%2Fimages%2Fremote%2Fhttps_s3.amazonaws.com%2Flifesite%2FShutterstock%2Fman_afraid_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg&sp=0d561d51ce90283aeba5a0fc9c245870) (https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Frestlesspilgrim.net%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2FTerrified.jpg&sp=89236502705415fd8a7c18956f81e8e4)
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BOxUX1VA1TA/hqdefault.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/gLlKqdn.png)
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8430/29614914170_deb2d5c276_b.jpg)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEmexAgvX5Vi6ApjrqzddPShVWgT4qSO2sMjycEyjKYTgkzIPuxA)
-
Globe Earth'ers are terrified of this post!
(https://ak.picdn.net/offset/photos/564f58ec72375f2a29e619e0/medium/photo.jpg)
-
LOL
-
.
Flat-earthers are true to form, as usual.
No intelligible or rational discussion, just SPAM.
.
What a joke you make of yourselves! HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
.
Fascinating. No replies, after 3 days. Not enough time? Hmmm?
Where's Ladislaus now? Too many difficult questions? There are a LOT more difficult questions.
.
We have to start somewhere.
.
The CI platform keeps track of views, and right now nobody has viewed the photos I posted above.
2, 0, 1, 0, 2 = the views from MY OWN clicking on those photo uploads.
Therefore, it is clear that nobody is interested in any "rational discussion" as Ladislaus would say they are.
Not even Ladislaus is interested, so that means Ladislaus is a liar. Prove me wrong.
.
Where is the impudent Smedley Butler who claims to not be embarrassed?
Too busy posting on other threads in order to avoid this one where he knows he has NO CHANCE.
Go get help from your buddies: it's not going to help.
.
The ball's in your court.
.
.
Flat-earthers are incapable of intelligent replies, apparently.
.
WTF comes out of retirement for what? More nonsense! :jester: WTF?
.
(BTW -- there is just one view of one image in the above posts, but still no reply to the questions I asked.)
(You can have just one more month to answer the questions, then your time will be up. C'est la vis!)
.
-
.
Flat-earthers are incapable of intelligent replies, apparently.
.
WTF comes out of retirement for what? More nonsense! :jester: WTF?
.
(BTW -- there is just one view of one image in the above posts, but still no reply to the questions I asked.)
(You can have just one more month to answer the questions, then your time will be up. C'est la vis!)
.
.
Still nothing from flat-earthdown-syndrome groupies.
3 more days..............
Time is slipping away!
Someone viewed two photos, though, one for photo #4 and one for #5.
But they must not have understood what they're looking for because there's been no answers.
Flat-earthdown-syndromers don't have any answers.
-
.
Do you see any problem for anyone on earth, going outside June 12th, expecting to see the moon in this picture I posted?
.
Expecting to see any "moon" that in any way looks anything like this one in the photo?
.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49112.0;attach=11846;image)
.
If you see any problem, then make a complete description here why you would see any problem with that.
.
And if you don't see any problem with that, then explain why you don't see any problem.
.
.
A very simple challenge -- but no flat-earthdown-syndromer is up to the challenge.
.
Maybe they're simply too scared!
.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bendbulletin.com%2Fcsp%2Fmediapool%2Fsites%2Fdt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls%3FSTREAMOID%3DTB5wQdcceZtuLl1bMPacv8%24daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYt4dKYrwj4aDN2pBfXzDeElWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF%249l%244uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-%26amp%3BCONTENTTYPE%3Dimage%2Fjpeg&sp=f8634bb830529a81c6d5b72e7cab0d65) (https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fembracingwade.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F02%2Fcropped-img_4060.jpg&sp=7b017752f5aa6ab168b025b4913017d0)
-
.
BTW for the RECORD, here is a CathInfo file copy of the photo these flat-earthdown-syndromers got all upset over.
Incredible! June 12th, 2018, and they thought the moon could possibly look like THIS!!!!!!
.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49112.0;attach=11844;image)
.
.
I know, I know, I'd be embarrassed too, if this happened to me.
In fact, if I had been a flat-earthdown-syndromer this would be the last straw.
I would be like, I can't believe I was stupid enough to buy into this flattardom garbage.
.
Now THAT, I can understand. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
-
Someone viewed two photos, though, one for photo #4 and one for #5.
False alarm! 'Twas only I. I haven't been around the flattist ghetto much lately, because I concluded that debating its stubbornly ignorant residents was an indefensibly poor use of my time [*].
Altho' making a digressive visit to the ghetto, the obnoxiously imperative topic that was posted by Butler, with its most recent replies by Obstat, caught my eye. "Go look at the moon right now!"? Really, why? I haven't looked at the Moon since its progression into the Paschal Full Moon back in March. But Butler was useless to explain the subject of his own topic; he apparently expects readers to "just click" on links posted without any introduction. Like [Hades] I will! As I read on, I was pleased to see that Obstat had kindly posted the subject images, which all seemed to feature a badly butchered photo of a gibbous Moon (not full, as shown by its leftmost dark crescent).
Was the unexplained occlusion on the upper right the reason for Butler's attention? As I've come to expect, he didn't enlighten readers, what with him being among the more illiterate flattists, thus unable to write more than 17 words total in his initial 4 postings in this topic he originated.
I guess that someone photographed a Moon, whose occlusion is pretty obviously explained as tree branches, in very-low-contrast lighting (e.g., shooting thro' ground fog at night). Then used a photo-editor to plop that mutilated Moon into an image that provided an empty blue sky. Fog could account for the blurriness of that Moon.
The obvious side-illumination of the mutilated gibbous Moon might be at odds with what seems to be a relatively forward angle of illumination for the front of the chimney. What seems to be classic long-focal-length foreshortening clobbers my confidence in guesstimating those angles.
And while we're looking at chimneys, does its style indicate anything about its geographic location? It's not a style I'd expect to see, e.g., in California "ticky-tacky little boxes", nor in Florida tract-houses.
But they must not have understood what they're looking for because there's been no answers.
I know perfectly well what I am looking for. Years ago, as an annual task, I began to generate & store a wonderfully useful table from an authoritative source, but it's now on a computer that I've powered off because of some computer-archæology I'm doing here. Besides, the table is in the style of line-printer output from a mainframe, so the more illiterate flattists might be completely unable to figure it out. I did find something that has pictures, so they might be able to understand that. But they, plus those who can figure out printed numbers, as we've seen in the past, would then likely reject its authoritative source as "demonic, pagan, and masonic" or somesuch.
Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active spherist, I'm stifling my own answers, out of respect for the excessively generous deadlines offered to the flattists by announcements in this topic from Obstat.
-------
Note *: And for making that conclusion of "A Complete Waste of Time!" unavoidable, I can thank a compilation-style topic that was originated by Obstat himself!
-
False alarm! 'Twas only I. [Thank you.]
As I read on, I was pleased to see that Obstat had kindly posted the subject images, which all seemed to feature a badly butchered photo of a gibbous Moon (not full, as shown by its leftmost dark crescent).
[Is a "full moon" what you would have expected that day?]
Was the unexplained occlusion on the upper right the reason for Butler's attention?
[Who knows? He never said. Plausible deniability!]
The obvious side-illumination of the mutilated gibbous Moon might be at odds with what seems to be a relatively forward angle of illumination for the front of the chimney. What seems to be classic long-focal-length foreshortening clobbers my confidence in guesstimating those angles.
And while we're looking at chimneys, does its style indicate anything about its geographic location? It's not a style I'd expect to see, e.g., in California "ticky-tacky little boxes", nor in Florida tract-houses.
Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active spherist, I'm stifling my own answers, out of respect for the excessively generous deadlines offered to the flattists by announcements in this topic from Obstat.
-------
Note *: And for making that conclusion of "A Complete Waste of Time!" unavoidable, I can thank a compilation-style topic that was originated by Obstat himself!
.
Right!
.
Where you have:
"And while we're looking at chimneys, does its style indicate anything about its geographic location? It's not a style I'd expect to see, e.g., in California "ticky-tacky little boxes", nor in Florida tract-houses."
.
...my reply would be: The shape of the flue caps, the brick details and the apparent age of the chimney indicate together that this is a chimney photographed in England, not in America. There is a small chance it's in Australia, however. There may be a few of these in America but one would have to deliberately choose one of them, so that's not very likely. The photographer doesn't have that kind of sophistication. He probably just took a picture of a chimney next door or out his bedroom window, and he got what he got because it was THERE.
.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49112.0;attach=11846;image)
.
Notice how many flues there are. Each one is from a different fireplace or stove hood. This means that eight (8 ) different fixtures are served by this one brick chimney. This is not a small house. It could be a multiplex. The undulating bottom edge of the sheet metal cap is uncharacteristically ornate and OLD WORLD, likely made of hammered copper, something found commonly in England, but not America. A chimney like this only occurs on the roof of a 3-story or higher structure. And the angle of view would put the camera either at a good distance away or on the second floor or higher of an adjacent building. He could be standing on the roof next to the chimney, but the size of the "moon" in the background would require him to be further away, using (as you say) a telephoto lens.
.
You can easily see the direction to the sun shining on this chimney by the fact that the shadow of the white rectangle with the 5 holes is cast along the horizontal bar that supports it as well as down about 6" of the vertical rod behind it, all of which are in its shadow. Therefore the sun is a bit low in the sky, to the right, behind the camera. The same sun would be shining on the "moon," but the way the moon is lit, it would have the sun much further to the right and very much lower in the sky. So the appearance of the "moon's" phase does not agree with the shadows on the chimney.
.
They are obviously two different images that have been merged to appear as though they were taken at the same time.
Like with Photoshop, for example. And they did a VERY sloppy job of it. Easily pegged as a fake.
Anyone who thinks they are possibly taken in one honest photo doesn't know what to look for in recognizing a fake photo.
.
But that doesn't really matter, in the end. It's far less important than one overriding reality of this whole thing.
.
Because even WITHOUT THE CHIMNEY, the "moon" all alone, given the date the picture was taken, is all you need to know.
-
Anyone who thinks they are possibly taken in one honest photo doesn't know what to look for in recognizing a fake photo.
Well, it's been more than adequately demonstrated that the flattists are ignorant about the technologies of photography and optics.
But that doesn't really matter, in the end. It's far less important than one overriding reality of this whole thing. Because even without the chimney, the "moon" all alone, given the date the picture was taken, is all you need to know.
Yes, I know that. I had assumed that I was not being too subtle when I wrote:
Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active spherist, I'm stifling my own answers [....]
Annnd
I know perfectly well what I am looking for. Years ago, as an annual task, I began to generate & store a wonderfully useful table from an authoritative source, but it's now on a computer that I've powered off because of some computer-archæology I'm doing here. Besides, the table is in the style of line-printer output from a mainframe [....]
Ummm, actually 2 of the astronomical tables that I've annually generated & stored are applicable. Indeed, their column-headers are months, and their row headers are the days. No entertaining animation, no pretty colors, just unadorned information.
Those tables are excellent examples of how modern astronomy (or astrophysics) can routinely be applied to make predictions whose outcome can be verified (sometimes trivially). Unlike (ahem!) what we might call "the flat-Earth model".
But your gauntlet wasn't flung at me, it was flung at the flattists. So I, too, will wait to see their responses--if any.
-
Ummm, actually 2 of the astronomical tables that I've annually generated & stored are applicable. Indeed, their column-headers are months, and their row headers are the days. No entertaining animation, no pretty colors, just unadorned information.
Those tables are excellent examples of how modern astronomy (or astrophysics) can routinely be applied to make predictions whose outcome can be verified (sometimes trivially). Unlike (ahem!) what we might call "the flat-Earth model".
.
No special tables are necessary here. Nothing fancy required.
.
It's no small matter that flat-earthers can't manage to agree on a flat-earth model.
They quite often say they don't want one and they don't need one.
Their inability to agree with each other is evidence of how imaginary their flat-earthism really is!
.
But even if they COULD agree on a model, there is no FE model that would be useful for any of this.
Because no flat-earth model is possible that could shed any light on whether these pictures are fake or not.
.
But there is a commonly accessible reference that settles the question in one fell swoop.
It's nothing fancy, and you probably have one on display in your office or in your home.
.
Even flat-earthers have one, but they might not know how to use it, since it deals with facts.
Flat-earthdown-syndromers don't like to deal with facts.
.
-
.
It takes the low level of understanding flat-earthers have of our sun and moon to be fooled by this fake moon image.
.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49112.0;attach=11844;image)
Flat-earthdown-syndromer's expectation for the "moon" on June 12th, 2018!
.
You can't make this stuff up!
.
-
Flat-earthdown-syndromers don't like to deal with facts.
To facilitate staying on-topic herein, I've responded to this quote as a reply (admittedly "outta the blue") where it'll be even more on-topic:
<https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-is-neil-up-to/msg616997/#msg616997 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-is-neil-up-to/msg616997/#msg616997)>.
-
No special tables are necessary here. Nothing fancy required.
[....] no flat-earth model is possible that could shed any light on whether these pictures are fake or not. But there is a commonly accessible reference that settles the question in one fell swoop. It's nothing fancy, and you probably have one on display in your office or in your home.
I'm invoking the fictional Prof. Kingsfield, whose favorite advice included this imperative: "Nevah assume".
Well, what I have "on display" is the CMRI/Mary Immaculate Queen Center "Traditional" 2018 edition. It does not show the symbols that you seem to be assuming must be shown in any reference like it. Not even the crucial symbol that would be expected in Passiontide, on which much of the liturgical year depends.
-
.
Well, no, the symbols are not always there, but on a majority of printed secular versions, they are included.
.
The point is, the symbols are not rare or hard to find.
-
.
I will now proceed to demonstrate the ridiculousness of flat-earthism in one argument, right here.
.
In case you're entirely confused with what I'm asking for, take the first photo, below, and look carefully at the shadows on the chimney image. Look at how the chimney's corner is in front of the so-called moon. Compare the image of the moon to the image of the shadows on the chimney in the foreground. I shouldn't have to give you any more clues than this.
.
BTW (left single) click on the image below to view an enlarged image.
.
The ball is in your court. Flat-earthers unite! You get exactly one chance, and this is IT!
.
Go on your flattard blogs world wide, if you must, and summon all the help you can get, because you're going to need it.
.
.
Flat-earthers have chosen not to defend themselves.
.
Smugley Butthead started this thread because he was alarmed when he saw the image of what he thought was the moon online:
.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49112.0;attach=11844;image)
.
Then happenby joined in with similar astonishment, and both of them (and untold numbers of others) bought into the scam.
.
Why didn't they simply check their calendar to see what the moon phase was that day?
.
They don't know how to use the calendar moon phases. They've shown that to be the case numerous times.
.
But even if they did know how to use it, they wouldn't think of using their calendar, because they don't believe it.
.
They don't have a "flat" earth calendar, so they think the one they do have is bogus.
.
Part of the globalist conspiracy, you know.
.
But presuming they could use their calendar and they could find out what the moon phase is, they wouldn't be able to use that.
.
Because the phase of the moon for that day would tell them something they couldn't use.
.
They couldn't use the information because they don't understand the information.
.
Therefore, flat-earthers were SITTING DUCKS for this scam. They do not comprehend the basics of cosmology.
.
-
.
It's so funny to see this, when flat-earthers are totally fooled due to their own ignorance, and they don't recognize it when it happens.
Flat-earthers, who don't understand the basics of cosmology,
were entirely taken away by a silly scam,
one that would have been obviously a scam
if they only knew the basics of cosmology.
.
But in their ignorance
flat-earthers were sitting ducks
and there they sat
fat, dumb and happy.
.
Trouble is
they're still sitting there
in the same place.
.
This experience has taught them nothing
and so they're ripe and ready for
the next scam!
-
.
BTW you just missed another great chance to estimate the distance from earth to the sun.
-
.
BTW you just missed another great chance to estimate the distance from earth to the sun.
Definitely not nearly a billion miles away. What a joke.
-
.
Definitely not nearly a billion miles away. What a joke.
.
Who said anything about the sun being "a billion miles away?" Are you on drugs again?