Moon totally on it's side right now

...and a single fake old "photo" which nasa's site dont have at all.


-

Why should I prove anything this isn't a courtroom nor do I care if I influence the opinions of those reading this. You seem to misunderstand that it is only your opinion that dictates burden of proof, for me there is no burden.

Unlike you, I do actual research, properly. I enjoy it. If only you knew the extent to which I actually research the things I say... if you were half as thorough as I am you wouldn't be spouting such bullshit.

Perhaps I have "no life," I certainly don't do most of the things most society associates with having a good time, but I thoroughly enjoy doing research. If that's "no life" to you, so be it, I don't give a damn. I didn't go to a library for this thread specifically though, if you think this thread or the claims you've made within it are at all original then you're even more deluded than I thought. These claims come out every year at GLP and elsewhere, and the photographs I found and researched apply to all of them.

You've made claims, claims which carry a burden of proof. That is what you do not understand. If you wish to be irrational, you can be, certainly no one is going to hold you in contempt for it.

It's up to you to prove the photo is "fake." If you would like a copy for yourself straight from NASA, call their public affairs office and ask for one. The ID# is 108-KSC-71P-74.

If only I could be as thorough as you astro.. It has haunted me since birth. FUCK I wish I had the skill to open a book and upload an image to imageshack. You act like your re-inventing the wheel.. Please get a sense of accomplishment and a personality wouldn't hurt you either. I honestly admire your will and determination, but I despise your judgement of where it is needed. If you would put your time into something useful, instead of derailing every thread I create, you might be worth somethin to somebody someday.

This is what your not understanding.. This is why your photo holds no credibility. Lmao i'll take my facts from nasa when obama takes my guns from me, you killed it with that comment man.

When was the last time a Saturn V was launched? The 1970's, genius. The photo itself proves the era in which it was taken, that's why I love it so much. It's self-contained elegance.

That is one of the all-time most idiotic things I have ever read on GLP. That's quite an accomplishment. Perhaps you meant to say "cheshire," and yes, it's entirely normal at this time of year. The above photo from NASA was taken in January as well. You don't believe me? You can ask these guys, they know because they sold an original print of the photo:
[link to apollomissionphotos.com]
30 January 1971
I have original KSC prints from Apollo myself, they all have the date they were taken stamped on the backs, along with the ID#.

It's up to you to prove the photo is not credible. You really don't get it. The burden of proof is on you to prove it is fake. DUMBASS900 wanted it from NASA, I told him how to get it from NASA. I also gave you an amateur photo as well, you ignored it, so don't pretend like you care that it came from NASA. You don't. You just ignore any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Translation: "Leave me alone, my threads can't stand up to any critical analysis!"

Madison, Wisconsin (USA) Northern hemisphere

and how the moon (should) look like in January

[link to planetariumweb.madison.k12.wi.us (secure)]

and in Spring

[link to planetariumweb.madison.k12.wi.us (secure)]

and Summer

[link to planetariumweb.madison.k12.wi.us (secure)]

found this one as better proof with the name and date

Interesting, so nobodys else got that sequence on a photo of saturn 5 with that moon of the '70s.

Cool story bro.

An amateur photo of the cheshire moon was provided as well. Also ignored.

Hey, if planetarium simulations of the moon's position are what you want, go knock yourself out:
[link to www.stellarium.org]
But you STILL don't understand the purpose or point I made with the old photos.

1970 is the best you can get?

what to say more ...

just glad to see that you enjoy proving how big "dr." you are

lol, and no video as well.

Astro your backyard analysis means dick to me. I couldn't give a fuck less what you think your proving to me with your pictures, as stated before I base my beliefs off of personal truth. Hence when I watch something happen = much more proof than you could possibly provide. Like I said no one is here to reinvent the wheel. Quite frankly if I could go back in time and unstart this thread I would do so just to avoid having to hear you continously spew bullshit and post nasa images. Obviously if I wanted a remark from nasa, I would've posed my question while on their website, whilst referencing their photos to provide myself with proof. I don't see ANY PHOTO as proof that anything ever happened. ANY PHOTO can be faked, and it is on that basis that I disregard them as evidence completely. With that said, having seen the moon continously over the years, it's not that hard to notice when something is not right, as many have. You continue to read from your science books because your world is black and white.

What I find amusing.....Is that when I mention the moon debate going on here. I get strange looks from friends and family. Everyone I know seems to know about the phases of the moon through out the year ans how it changes......Except a few on here. Why is that. lol
I am now wondering if its some sick mind game being played out.....

That link does not show the sky in January. The dates on the ecliptic refer to when the Sun is at that location. I'm not sure if the Month markers represent the beginning of the month or the middle of it, but that just means the date represented by that shot is either mid-November or the beginning of December. Show us a screenshot for that location in mid-January, and a few hours after sunset.

Far more than good enough considering the claim is consistently that this is a new phenomenon in the last 10 years or so. Thanks.

Here are some photo's of the crescent moon in winter :)


[link to www.google.com (secure)]

A little knowledge is just enough to hang yourself with. Your friends and family probably don't watch it enough to notice small changes.

Blah, blah, blah.
In other words, facts and evidence mean nothing to you, you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what.

Yes, but you clearly do not understand what it is you are seeing, nor do you realize it's not new, nor do you realize that it's not unusual. I've been doing amateur astronomy for 17 years now this year, I know it's not new for a fact and I provided photographic evidence from AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS as well as NASA to back it up.

Wrong, I know what I know from first hand practical experience. I understand field rotation because I actually have to deal with it. I understand why the moon looks the way it does from a first-hand practical point of view, not just because some book says so. I put the books to use, I know they're right because I've experienced it for myself first hand.

I've proven you wrong in this thread with the evidence that I've posted, gathered by my own research guided by experience and expertise. Your automatic dismissal is irrational, but that is your choice. I post it not for your benefit, but to expose your irrationality and demonstrate the truth for the sake of others who might read it with an open mind.

Lol find me someone who agrees a nasa image is credible evidence and i'll eat your taint astro, til then you didn't provide shit.

You can play ad hominem games against "NASA" all you want, but you have not proven the photo a fake, nor have you provided any rational reason to automatically ignore and dismiss the amateur photo. While the majority of GLP may be foolish enough to play along with ad hominem against NASA and automatically disregard any photograph from a NASA center simply because it's NASA (and again, you still haven't proven the photo a fake), you will find it much more difficult to get the majority to agree to automatically disregard amateur photos.

I'm simply throwing it out as circumstantial evidence.

It's direct evidence showing that the "horizontal moon" is not a new phenomenon. It's up to you to prove it's fake.

Everyone also note how he completely ignores the issue of the amateur photo.

Dude i'm ignoring you..

Your assertion that the Moon looks different now than it did in the past (based purely on what you remember you saw) is also just "circumstantial" evidence.