The Flat Moon Over the Flat Earth

Not heard much about Q ,and it's correct to say he doesn't answer any of those direct questions.

    When I read the ambiguous statement "False,moon landings are real " I see a fine example of doublespeak . Q doesn't say the moon landings are real . That statement says ,in my opinion ,that false moon landings occurred.

Found this PDF about Q on another site. His/their revelations seem deliberately veiled with disinfo . Interesting read though .

https://b8b08ef1-7f45-434d-b91d-bdfb4626231b.filesusr.com/ugd/f9aeb3_934818f349de4571acfb0a3f13a6608f.pdf

Q is obvious controlled opp, i don't care what unknown figure heads say when the facts prove that the moon isn't even a solid object to land freemasons on. Q is no different than Alex Jones, David Icke, and ODD.

I would like to add to this though about Q. There is real info and that is it. This is called misdirection, to use info but to misdirect it. That is the interesting part. To find the misdirection and why. But anyway all im saying is that it is simply important to not put all your eggs in one basket so to say. Nor only cross-referencing but at some point i also started to look at certain art and artifacts and als temple pictures. I mean often(not always) an artist is less restricted and even if restricted kind of reveals things then because of the nature of art that doesn't happen in language. I know this sounds way to abstract without concrete examples. But for example this Da Vinci painting was measured with a laser and it was found out and published in many scientific papers that there were layers of 2 microns thick. Now this doesn't hit home with most people. But it is impossible to do that with the said pigment mixing and materials that are attributed to this time. Even in current day it is not possible. Except with for example printing techniques or whatever. Anyway even if somehow there is some way that Da Vinci could have made such thin material. How will you apply 2 micron layer? You think with a brush? Completely impossible. Anyways, i am currently not too much into theories. More into just looking at separate things without trying to fit it into some narrative or theory.

Hi guys, I have a new question maybe dumb but I can’t get it. If the moon’s path is circling around our plane perfectly, shouldn’t we see it “rise” every day from the same point of the sky ? I’m asking because one week ago I saw the full-moon coming from the east and today I saw it coming from almost under Polaris ? Is this make any sense ? Is there an explanation ? Thanks!

Hey Dexter, the Moon takes 24:50 minutes per revolution while the Sun takes 24 hours so the Moon falls behind the speed of the Sun by about 50 minutes a day causing it to be visible at night for half the month and during the day for the other half (and not at all during new moon).

Admin wrote:Hey Dexter, the Moon takes 24:50 minutes per revolution while the Sun takes 24 hours so the Moon falls behind the speed of the Sun by about 50 minutes a day causing it to be visible at night for half the month and during the day for the other half (and not at all during new moon).

So far so good, but during the night no matter if the time was 8pm, 10pm or 1am the moon’s “rising” point should be from the same spot I think if the circles are perfect of course..

The Moon's path, similar to the Sun's, spirals from Tropic to Tropic so they are not perfect circles

Hi, how are you dealing with phases of the moon and how this occurs? Pardon the question, but just signed up and I have searched the site yet nothing came up, if I missed it some where please point me in the right direction. I have been asked the question but couldn't imagine what the answer could be! I understand the moon is its own luminary, cold light and not reflected sunlight. The info you've given above is helpful too, thanks Eric

What a wonderfully interesting thread. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the sun and moon patterns in relation to different locations and perspectives etc but it’s very fascinating.

The full moon appeared on the south east coast of Australia last night. These photos are taken about 12 hours apart and the moon has rotated a lot. I’ve only been awake to our realm since the start of this year and all my moon shots have shown the same angle so this is very cool.


Full moon at approx 6pm


Next morning at 6am

Also, a photo taken yesterday afternoon at about 5pm shows the moon looking uneven and not a circle, does anyone have an explanation for this? It’s a shame the power lines are in the way because the moon still appeared distorted even without those there. Very cool.



All taken with Nikon P900

Hello my flat friends

I’m checking out when the next full moon is and it’s the 14th of June, which is apparently supposed to be a “super moon” where it appears bigger and brighter than usual.

There was a bullshit explanation about how they occur “when the centre of the moon is less than 360,000 kilometres from the centre of earth”. Does anyone know what actually might cause this to occur or if it’s even a real thing? I’m keen to see whether it looks much different

Today I saw a beautiful moon.

I recall hearing claims that the moon light is colder than the nighttime shade.

Does anyone have access to a Fresnel lens? What would magnified moonlight do? Does this make a super-cold spot when concentrated?

Unfortunately I do not have the ability to do this experiment but I would be really interested in helping someone get the results... Or at least hearing them.

beeman wrote:Today I saw a beautiful moon.

I recall hearing claims that the moon light is colder than the nighttime shade.

Does anyone have access to a Fresnel lens? What would magnified moonlight do? Does this make a super-cold spot when concentrated?

Unfortunately I do not have the ability to do this experiment but I would be really interested in helping someone get the results... Or at least hearing them.

According Samuel Rowbotham if you magnify the sun you get a focal point that generates no light but intense heat. Enough heat to make wood kindle and metal to smolder. However if you magnify the moons rays into a focal point you get a bright spot with no heat. Exactly opposite.  There are many sun and Fresnel lens experiments on YouTube. I’ve only seen one moon and Fresnel lens experiment on YouTube and it was inconclusive.

beeman wrote:Today I saw a beautiful moon.

I recall hearing claims that the moon light is colder than the nighttime shade.

Does anyone have access to a Fresnel lens? What would magnified moonlight do? Does this make a super-cold spot when concentrated?

Unfortunately I do not have the ability to do this experiment but I would be really interested in helping someone get the results... Or at least hearing them.

I found that so fascinating when I first heard it! At my work we have laser guns for temperature checks, I took the spare one home on a full moon and found that the moonlight was about 3-5 degrees colder than moon shade. I’m sure there’s other variables involved e.g. temp of the surface you’re measuring etc but it would be really cool to do a controlled experiment to test it out

BreezusChrist wrote:

beeman wrote:Today I saw a beautiful moon.

I recall hearing claims that the moon light is colder than the nighttime shade.

Does anyone have access to a Fresnel lens? What would magnified moonlight do? Does this make a super-cold spot when concentrated?

Unfortunately I do not have the ability to do this experiment but I would be really interested in helping someone get the results... Or at least hearing them.

I found that so fascinating when I first heard it! At my work we have laser guns for temperature checks, I took the spare one home on a full moon and found that the moonlight was about 3-5 degrees colder than moon shade. I’m sure there’s other variables involved e.g. temp of the surface you’re measuring etc but it would be really cool to do a controlled experiment to test it out

I've done the experiment on multiple occasions, and every time the moonlight is colder by at least a few degrees. Point it directly at the moon and it is about minus 50 by memory!

Why Does the Moon Appear Upside-Down in the Southern Hemisphere?



Globe defenders often claim that since the Moon appears right-side up when viewed from the Northern Hemisphere and upside-down when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere that this is proof positive of a spherical Earth. They believe that observers standing in the Southern Hemisphere of their spinning ball are literally upside-down relative to observers in the North, and that this is the only possible reason the Moon could appear inverted when viewed from opposite hemispheres. Anyone can easily debunk this flimsy claim for themselves however by simply taping a picture of the Moon to their ceiling and viewing it from opposite sides of the room. The Moon will appear right-side up when viewed from one end of the room and upside-down when viewed from the other. There is no need for the entire room to be spherical, nor for observers to be standing physically upside-down relative to one another to explain this simple phenomenon.

On the Flat Earth model, the Moon as well as the Sun, are always located somewhere between the Tropics spending the majority of their time on or near the equator. So just like the picture taped in the middle of the room, people viewing from the North will see the Moon appearing right-side up while people viewing from the South will see it appearing upside-down. This phenomenon is therefore easily explainable regardless of whether the observers are assumed to be standing upside-down on a ridiculous spinning ball or right-side up on a logical level plane. Deeper investigation into the matter, however, reveals details that definitively determine which one it is.