WARNING: SOLAR DATA PAGE COMPLETELY CENSORED,DATA ON OTHER SOURCES BEING FABRICATED!

mow? I referenced the book in the very first video I made about the calculations at the very beginning. I talked about it at length. Thanks for proving you never watched it. You have now proven that you are not even paying attention to the evidence against your claims. You didn't even watch my videos. Good job exposing yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time going in circles with you asshole, you are a pretender, a liar, a fraud and an idiot. I have proved this whether you have the brains to see it or not. Why not go start your own thread and see if anyone gives a damned what you have to say. I have earned my credibility and that is why I have trolls and stalkers following me all over the internet , because I am a revolutionary and I have the ability to overthrow the status quo in science and the jews have a lot at stake.

I have never watched any of your videos, I don't have to to debunk them. I know you're moron and a pretender and I know you're full of shit. All o have to say is PROVE IT, and you're finished. Your reputation preceeds you.

Yes, it does. His reputation and predictions stand in stark contrast to yours. His videos prove conclusively that the Moon and other heavenly objects are moving as predicted.

The fact that you don't understand that is what is so illuminating to me. And the fact you don't have the courage to watch his videos (or, apparently, the intelligence to understand them) speaks quite loudly, too. You say 'Prove it.' He gives you the proof, and then, by your own admittance, you refuse to even watch it.

So *who* is misusing the scientific method?

Where else have you been on the net today posting your thoughts?

And where is your well thought out proof moron.

Today? I don't think I was posting elsewhere today.

I will quote this back to you every time you fail to prove your claims from now on.

For example: the burden of proof is on you to prove the Moon is moving in any unusual or traditionally unpredicted ways, as you claim.

Prove it. A step by step experiment, or furnish the old texts that show eclipses happening differently than they are happening this year.

I shan't hold my breath.

^This. It's amazing how much he just admitted. He's a coward, he won't even watch a short video because he's scared it will challenge his belief system. I gave him precisely what he asked for, and he ignored it. That means the original request was completely dishonest. You can show him calculations that prove him wrong after he asks for them and he won't even look, he'll just cover his eyes and plug his ears. I thought it was just that he wasn't intelligent enough, but now I find out that he's a coward as well. I thought he at least had the courage of his convictions to look at the evidence, but it turns out he doesn't even have that. He just managed to knock himself down a few notches, and I didn't even know he could go lower. Amazing.

I haven't looked for them because I am still trying to iron out exactly what you are claiming. The circular reasoning outlined above is all you, so you can see my dilemma in sussing out what you are claiming.

Iron down exactly what you are claiming about lunar movements, and maybe an experiment can be designed that will allow the veracity of your claim to be tested.

Which part above in my description of what you are claiming do you disagree with? Be specific.

And if I find texts predicting the upcoming Solar and Lunar eclipses, how far in the past do they have to be from for you to admit your error?

My mistake then, just some exact phrasing of words I saw somewhere else today.

I didn't say to find texts predicting eclipses many years in advance, I know they exist. I said to show the calculations made prior to 1975 which predict an eclipse on a particular date.

I think you realize what I meant and the vast difference, and you cannot do it because there is no way to make any such calculation that far in advance, which proves the source of information used to predict eclipses many years in advance does not originate with modern astronomical techniques.

You have already proven you will not look at calculations when they are presented, so your question is completely dishonest.

When you PROVE the source of information on your video originates with yourself, then I will watch it. If you cannot, and you have even admitted without realizing it that you 'borrowed' the information from elsewhere, what is the point in watching your self aggrandizing bullshit.?

Not on a video you made, i won't waste my time.Show me the goods from an official publication complete with supporting calculations made over 35 years ago predicting a present day eclipse.
You can't because it cannot be done with the inaccurate timekeeping methods now in use by modern scientists. This PROVES they are obtaining the information to make these predictions from other than their own methodology. I think I have made myself crystal clear..

Ummmm, there proof in his videos. Why don't you man the fuck up and watch his video? Oh yeah, because you are a troll.

Ummmmm, i think it is YOU trolling my thread, not the other way around. if you think my words are invalid and have no substance, why are you here trolling me?

I don't want to hear another peep out of you until you watch the videos. AS I DESCRIBED IN THE VIDEO THAT YOU WERE TOO COWARDLY TO WATCH, I used the tables in the book I referenced, which was published 22 years ago, to calculate the position of the moon for any given point in time relative to the center of the earth. From there I did my own calculations to produce topocentric coordinates from any given location on earth, as well as altitude-azimuth, phase angle, and orientation of the phase angle relative to the horizon. The calculations are all right there in the link given in the video description, THE VIDEO YOU ARE TOO COWARDLY TO WATCH. Anyone can take the same book and compare it to my spreadsheet to see that I did not lie about anything I presented. The whole point of using that book was so that I'd be using data that is decades old so that tards like you could not claim that the reason it worked was because I used recent data! The whole point was to show that the moon's orbit was not out of whack compared to decades ago! Had I used my own data to compute the orbit of the moon, THAT would have been "self-aggrandizing bullshit" and defeated the point entirely! You don't even understand the point of the above videos, which shouldn't surprise anyone because you're too much of a coward to even watch them!

I'm not trolling you idiot. I am saying go post facts about what you are saying and think about the opposing view rather than bashing them and saying they are shills and wrong. You need to learn some stuff and get a Brian. Your the one making yourself look stupid right now.

Last Edited by Bomb Cyclone on 02/27/2013 03:41 AM

Because it's inordinately entertaining watching you having your backside kicked by cold, hard facts?

Yes, it is, he has posted under many screen id's for many years. he has the same MO every time, feigned authority on all sorts of astrophysical and astronomical subjects, copy and pasting and editing the work of others to make it appear his own. Let me think about it and i will tell you who he is also posting as.

You realize you just admitted you're a lying troll, right asstroll


BINGO, this is your sock for ass troll

There you go going off subject again. We asked that you watch a damn video, but your here talking about how he copies work of others(which isn't true). Get a life!

Fuck off!!!

Coulda fooled me!

On this site? No one. I have other screen names on other sites, only one to a site though. Before you say I'm Phil Plait or Jay Windley, I'm not. I go by NGCHunter on many sites, including BAUT and nightskiesnetwork. I properly referenced the book I was using on the video you're TOO COWARDLY TO WATCH. The whole point was to use decades old data on the moon's orbit.

LMAO, nailed it huh?

No. You don't talk to women like that. Idiot.

^This

You are using at least two socks on this thread alone. 'elemental' is one of them