>>649240502As usual, the "ballers" over-simplify this fact to try and prove their model.
The Moon is most certainly self-illuminated, but not a "ball" or "solid." You can easily see through the Moon most afternoons. You can see blue sky right through the supposed "craters" on the Moon!
On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society” that they “saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.” Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable … The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon.
>>649240790Most certainly it's not. I've been to many seminars, I participate in forums and have many friends with me who regularly study and discuss these issues.
>>649240799Saying that one's assumption that he is not a scientist (ergo not a specialist) would, in no way, shape or form, boost his credibility. In fact, it would hinder it.
>pic relatedit's how i imagine you
