2 Simple reasons why the moon is off

It's pretty obvious that you're just trolling.

LOL - you're either taking some seriously good drugs, or you're just trolling like the OP.

The sun rises and sets at a different place on the horizon every day, so unless you live within a couple of miles of this mountain, and spend your life in its shadow, there's no way it can rise behind it every day.

We keep getting these ridiculous claims about the moon or sun being out of position, or the earth wobbling, or whatever, but nobody who claims it ever seems able to produce any evidence, like pictures or video which doesn't match what astronomers expect to see in the sky.

Meanwhile, the astronomers continue observing, measuring, taking images (and posting them all over the net) which wouldn't be possible if things were out of position, but people look at the sky for maybe the first time in 10 years, see something they don't recognise, and immediately assume it must be the sky that's wrong, not their memories or understanding...


PS - does this thread stink of sock-puppetry????

Perhaps we realize that the argument presented is a straw man. The model presented is a simple, back of the envelope calculation and not representative of a real climate model which accounts for diurnal and annual variations of the solar intensity as well as the solar cycle. Climate models break the Earth into a grid and vary the vegetation, hydrology, and cloud cover between each grid square. They are not simplistic models used for illustrative purposes only.

No, you're mistaken. The described tiny variation is for the eccentricity (roundness) of the orbit. It is NOT something you could see with your eyes. It would NOT affect any visibility in the daytime or apparent tilt/rotation of the Moon.

As for seeing the Moon in the daytime,
The Moon is out in the daytime EVERY MONTH. It always has been. Since it rises and sets about 50 minutes later each day as it progresses through its phases it HAS TO. In general, the full Moon rises around 6 PM and sets around 6 AM. The last quarter or waning half rises around midnight and sets around Noon. The new Moon rises around 6 AM and sets around 6 PM. And the first quarter or waxing half rises around Noon and sets around midnight. Lots of daytime opportunities there.

As for the apparent rotation, that is an illusion known as field rotation. It is because you are viewing the Moon from a round rotating surface. The Moon doesn't turn, you do. When you see it rise, you are looking East and it APPEARS to be rotated to the left. When high in the sky you are looking South and it is upright. When it sets you are looking West and it APPEARS to be rotated to the right. The amount of apparent rotation depends on phase, time of year and your location.
How do we know it isn't a real rotation? Because at the same time you see it setting and rotated to the right, someone on the other side of the world sees it rising and appearing to be rotated to the left. They can't both be true and they aren't because neither of them are. AT ALL TIMES THE NORTH POLE OF THE MOON STILL POINTS TO THE NORTH. Just because you and a few other people never noticed it before doesn't mean something is wrong.

Thanks for the excellent descriptions and explanation.

What puzzles me is that no matter how many times it's explained, people posting here just don't get it.

It's sad in a way that phenomena like this, or the changing of the seasons, movement of the sun, constellations etc. which was taken as just a normal part of the cycle of the year even just a few decades ago, is now a complete mystery to many people...

No. are you?

Just for someone who claims to be a smart person like yourself, to care so much to respond to something like this, which is way off in your estimation kind of attests for a lot does it not, I think moreso than you care to let on. Again, if it's just insane babblings there would be no reason to attack it with this site's so-called best responders.

I'll try to get to the rest of the responses and go against my better judgment by so-doing and thereby entering into their debate game, but I have no problem in defending what I believe.

But before I do that, I wanted to share some more of my thoughts that I've been thinking of.

First and foremost, think about the shape of Earth. What if there were no water on our planet. What shape would it be then? It certainly wouldn't be so spherical that we see in pictures from space. It would look like a child's playdough creation in the early phases, even more odd shapen than phobos, for example. That our moon is almost perfectly round yet our earth isn't with its more mass gives me another uneasy feeling. I can't quite put my finger on the significance of this yet, so perhaps someone else can give me their thoughts to help me on my way.

Second, their are just as capable satellites orbiting the moon, not just from America either. Current unclassified tech specs on satellite imagery from space looking at Earth can see within 3 feet. This is unclassified specs. Military classification prevents them from giving us what they are really capable of, but there are rumors that they could easily read a postage stamp from space, and I have no doubt this is true. What they can do on earth they can certainly do viewing the moon. So just give us a shot of the flag from one of their orbiting satellites and put to rest the landing on the moon controversy once and for all. But they haven't, this attests they don't have a picture to produce or they don't want us to know what their real capabilities are. Or both.

And then finally is there still anybody who doubts how the craters on the moon came to be? I think just 50 years ago they had no idea that they were impact craters or at least didn't want to let anyone on that they were. I mean even today they still try to give the false impression on some official pictures that they may be from volcanic activity in the past. As if.

The reason I bring up the last point is that coincides with the fact that our atmosphere is thinning. We are bombarded with small rock bombs from space continuously. This in my opinion is one of the main causes in our thinning atmosphere. These small nukes going off in our atmosphere takes its toll thereof.

Oh one other thing too as I think about it. A thinning atmosphere. (and not to even mention a failing magnetosphere) What could you do to mitigate the devastating effects? Trails in the sky comes instantly to mind. Doesn't it yours?

I think you missed my point completely, or you got it and now you're just misdirecting. There's no one denying that the moon shares the sky with the sun ever in the past. We're talking about viewability. Can you get that? With a thinning atmosphere we see the moon easily in the sky in the daytime more than we ever used to in the past. I hope you can finally understand this easy point. If not, let me know and I can try to help you again.

Yes, libration of the moon too was also once tried as an acceptable answer to the moon's orientation. When they realized that didn't work, because it couldn't account for the wide variations, the focus from everyone seemed to shift to field rotation. This can account for the usual shifting of the moon, but not the anomalous tilting that we sometimes see.

Put simply, I'm not the one erecting the straw men to then tear down. Global warming even though the terminology is a severe misnomer and climate change is more accurate, the reason for the change in climate is because of our thinning atmosphere. More rays from the sun can penetrate and wreck havoc on our weather system.

Again I ask, and now ask you specifically, what is the number one greenhouse gas? I don't ask this for no reason, because it directly ties in to having a thinning atmosphere and what that means to our current changing climate everywhere in the world. It's your test to see if you are as smart as you think you are, or try to show you are in your johari window of sorts. I'll be standing by. Either put up or shut up time now for you.

But that isn't true. The atmosphere isn't thinning and the Moon isn't more easily seen than it used to be. All we do have is more morons that never looked up before and even more that just read the first morons on the internet and believe it without question.





Libration has NEVER been an acceptable answer to the Moon's orientation. If some thought it was then they were wrong. Field rotation has always been right and it does account for the tilting you see. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.

oh, I know, I know... it's water init.

not that i see what this has to do with one of the weirder ideas round here. to paraphrase it, the is an unverified or corroberated change to the moons appearance, which must be attributed to a change in the planet that noone has noticed. and wouldnt lead to the change in the moon either. and then three posts above is the wierdest attempt to respond with answers to unanswered questions that take your own thread off topic.

im fascinated where this journey into your mind takes us next, its like a being on someone elses trip.

Why do you sound like the other more visible popular responders to other free thinkers on this site? Hmmmm, yes, it'll take much pondering to figure this conundrum out.

I'm not a moron who has never looked up before. You just made a fatal miscalculation of me. Now I assume this is your best response? It's terribly deficient. Does this reflect your current intellect? I'll give you 4 years to go back to school if necessary, no rush.

Wrong. The Earth with no water would still be round. Any object with sufficient mass, the Moon included, will tend to be round. Phobos does not have sufficient mass.



One can infer the capability of military satellites from the size of the launch vehicle. Resolution is governed by the Dawes limit which depends on the size of the objective mirror. There has yet to be a launch vehicle capable of launching a satellite more than a few meters across. It is highly unlikely then, if not impossible, for a military satellite to read a postage stamp. Hardly any reason it would need to anyway. How often would something they would want to read be in the correct orientation pointed to the sky with nothing above it?
Even the best resolution satellites would still have to be in orbit around the Moon to get the best pictures. A bigger satellite requires an bigger launch vehicle to get to lunar orbit. That is extremely expensive. NASA doesn't care about the "controversy" at all. They know the stuff is there. They have no reason to go to the extra expense to satisfy just a few people. Most would claim it was faked even with better pictures anyway.



How do you know some weren't from volcanic activity in the past? Were you there 4 billion years ago?

You cant win op you know right?

"Fatal miscalculation"? Is that intended to be a threat? Ooohh I'm quaking in my boots! Some anonymous guy on GLP who doesn't know what the Moon does in the sky doesn't like my answer. Oh whatever shall I do!

hey there's someone with half a brain, congrats. yes it is water. thinning atmosphere equals more sun rays heating and then evaporating the surface of the earth which is composed of water primarily. can you see the ramifications of this on my trip as you speak? you're smart enough, surely you don't need me to spell it out for you in terms of climate change.

eh? you think that the earth is round without water? are you high?

your lack of military tech is pitiful.

even wiki now admits there's no doubt they were impact craters. I'm sorry but you fail, not just fail in a small way, but miserably. Don't worry you always can get a second chance in life, after more schooling if you qualify.

you probably will as its not explain how the atmosphere is being thinned, by how much, or the evidence for this (i did only come in half way through)

quick reply. more monitoring from some anonymous coward you'd have me to believe? That's pure entertainment right there. Reason why I chose to post to GLP first.

okay then start at the beginning and don't try to understand the context without fully immersing yourself in the subject material. It'll only lead to your continued humiliation.

sure I can. this is easy stuff.

You really need to do a bit more research before posting...


Nope, it wouldn't. Not even close.

The deepest, and I mean the very, very deepest, part of the ocean is about 10Km, and the highest mountain is around 8.8Km, giving a maximum surface deviation of, oh let's call it 20Km. The radius of the earth is approximately 6350Km, so the deviation from spherical (or oblately spherical) is about 0.3% - and remember that's for the most extreme depth and height. It's so small you would be hard put to measure it from any distance away.


See above. You're misjudging the "roundness" of both the earth and the moon...


LOL - you can believe what you like, but a bit of research into optics and the problems of looking through a thick and turbulent atmosphere will show you that that kind of resolution just isn't possible, even with the very best lenses and cameras available.


Umm, yes they have :-

[link to www.bbc.co.uk]
[link to www.nasa.gov]
[link to www.space.com]

Did you even check before posting?


That, strangely enough, is how science is done. You put forward various hypotheses to try to explain observations, and then as data is gathered you eliminate the unlikely ones and give more credence to the likely ones. (But you seem ignorant of the scientific method, so perhaps you're confused about it.)


What makes you think the atmosphere is getting thinner? Wouldn't there be a noticeable drop in surface pressure? Major changes to the weather? difficulty breathing?


We've been "bombarded" by rocks since the solar system formed. There's nothing new in that.

A friend of mine likes to research ancient meteor shower reports to better understand how they evolve and change, and he's got records going back at least 1,000 years, and it looks like we're actually not getting as intense showers as they used to get "in the old days". (BTW, he went the trouble of learning Medieval English and old High German for his research, that's how much effort he put in to find out "the facts", unlike some who seem to beleive every GLP post and YouTube video.)


LOL - you seriously over-estimate the energies involved in even big meteors or fireballs. If you're just making stuff up, then you have to expect to be taken to task on it...


Ah, you're now a chem-tard as well are you? Well, given how much other drivel you seem to believe, I can't say I'm surprised.


See above - the atmosphere isn't thinning, and the moon has always, for about 4 billion years, appeared in the daytime sky. Just because you've suddenly noticed it, doesn't make it a new phenomenon.


And you still don't understand field rotation.

Show me an image of the moon that you claim is "rotated" in a way not consistent with expected field rotation. include date, time, lat and long, and then we can compare it to expected apparent rotation to see if you do have a point.

I hereby predict you won't take up that challenge, because you know full well we're right, and there's nothing odd about the moon - just people like you who don't understand basic science, maths and geometry, and who refuse to learn...

If the Earth had FORMED without water it would be round. Sorry for leaving out


Don't agree? Then PROVE IT. You'll still run into the Dawes limit and you'll still have a problem with the justification of having a satellite with such a resolution when it would seldom if ever have a use.
And of course you ignored the point about the difficulty of putting such a satellite in lunar orbit to please a few people that would claim it was faked anyway.



Did I say the majority weren't impact craters? Did I? Do you base all your info from Wiki?
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to news.nationalgeographic.com]
[link to www.agu.org]

Ahhh you're just so cuuute! Look at you go so valiantly to share with us your wisdom! I mean whisk-dumb!

Don't spout off to me about science boy. You've no idea of your place in this world.

Your links are cute. Trails, how simply cute.

No changes in weather? Oh c'mon, I don't even need to respond to this drivel. But you are right in one respect, we've been continually bombarded by comets. Check out the real effects of rocks hitting our earth sometime. You might be surprised what you could learn, if you're capable. Not that you'd admit it tho of course.

Have I posted one youtube video? that's just stupid ignorant misdirection on your part, quite obvious. And quite the fail too.

Don't speak about chemtrails or you'll have noble going off, it's his job afterall. There has to be a reason why him and snake and george have no other job.

Your talking points all sound vaguely familiar, and by vaguely I mean extremely. Just because you don't see it type shite. Try constructing an original sentence for once. We believe in you.

Again, if I'm off and crazy, there's no point in trying to prove me wrong. But you idiots want to obfuscate the issue. Just go back to my OP. Things are simple. Let the insane be, that you don't again is telling. Thanks for your confirmation. I shall ponder more and post more just to drive you nuts. If you don't like it, there's a million more threads to peruse ain't there?

ahh, so all this water was in the beginning when the earth was shapeless and void, and hot? now you're just being stupid.

wow your naivete just ceases to amaze me, thinking that there is no such thing as anything classified. you think? do you really? are you so intellectually deficient?

I don't have to prove anything. Nor do I care to. If my beliefs offend you so much, change the channel marge. As it is, I'm glad ole grimes guy died and we don't give a shit about him.

give'm hell OP! LOL

I was hoping for more of a challenge. I guess they're amateurs after all.

Now that I hope I can think in peace, there's one other piece to the moon puzzle I've been puzzled about.

You know how crime and aberrant criminal behavior is documented to increase when the moon is full? Well for the longest time I thought that the light of the moon just provides more opportunity for the deviant levels of our society to perpetrate their crimes. Now however I'm not so sure. There are more forces in play than meets the naked eye. What's the real reason? IDK. Again, other posters' help would be appreciated in steering me in the right direction.

im not humiliated, you're the one making the claims, unsubstantiated and non-sensical which are being highlight every other post as fantasy.

is english your native tongue?

lets make this a simple question then. How is the atmosphere thinning, what evidence is there for this?