the massive LIE on eclipses suggest the sky is a dome

[raaaid]

comapare this ever present false esplanation of eclipses with this real one:





the only real diagram on an eclipse on the net is mine the rest are a lie to concealed the truth

check out how a far away object DOESNT PRODUCE a define shadow as the eclipses we see do



the only truth is that everything is a lie

[5./JG27.Farber]

If you were looking at an eclipse on the face of the moon it would be night dummy.... Your about 6 hours early. Its not going to be on the floor, it will be on the moon.

[raaaid]

really i have no proof the sky is a dome yet i have proof that all eclipse diagrams are LIES:

its not the same 1% of sunlight than 99% of sunlight yet they represent it ALWAYS the same

http://www.google.es/search?q=moon+e...w=1280&bih=601

edit:

that eclipse diagram lead me to discover the easy falsification of relativity:

the star that appeared to move position in an eclipse due to gravity according einstein that PROVED relativity SHOULD move by the sun huge atmosphere refraction

oh come on einstein iq tests proved he was dumb, maybe he was just such a bad person(historically a psicological mistreater) that he got hired by the new world order to deny time travel

[Sternjaeger II]

NOT AGAIN!!!!!!

You haven't learned have you?!?!?!

[raaaid]

oh noes im making you think again, fast go watch some tv if posible fox news on irak

come on admitt the starlight bending of the sun could be caused not by gravity but by the sun huges hellium atmosphere refraction is a good troll, in the vein of the new emperors clothes fairy tale

[Sternjaeger II]

this is just a variation on your stupid theme, you're just polluting again this forum with your usual crap, apparently your ban didn't really teach you a lesson.

STOP TROLLING!!!

[winny]

Raaid, your argument is fundamentally flawed. Lunar eclipses do not have a clear definition at the edge of the shadow, any medium to close-up photograph shows this. In fact, go outside with a pair of binoculars and look at the moon at any phase except full. You'll see the same shadow and notice it's not as defined as it looks to the naked eye..

This is schoolboy stuff.

[raaaid]

well its not TOTALLY defined but quite defined:



a good argument i was given was overexposition



but this argument is broguth down by yor being able to see the grey of the seas in that picture

also you cant deny that ALLL diagrams of moon eclipses avalaible on the net are FALSE since they portrait the umbra as JUST ONE TONE shadow when the sade should gradually go from 0% to 100%

i withdraw my saying the sky is a dome i understand sternjager annoyance

yet i keep ALL diagrams avalaible on the net on moon eclipses except mine are wrong

[Warhound]

Raaaid ,did you write this?
If not it sounds like your evil twin did.

http://www.timecube.com/

[raaaid]

i would say since 2-3 years ago the startegy towards me changed to bringing down my arguments to personal attacks

i mean how do you bring down the proof that brings down realtivity proof: starlight bent by the sun is not caused by gravity but by suns atmospheric refraction

you know theres no point in trying to deceive me since i can see the decievement though i cant see what it hides

id say youre working on my morale so i give up the fight

but you know what i think i think youre a good guy:

you to me are like a guy who sells his country in a war to the enemy, but he just does it for the gold he trully loves his country and wish him to win the war