Is the moon a reflection of earth?

RileySlowWave wrote:

hellothere wrote:

RileySlowWave wrote:i watched some of this video

Your attention span couldn't handle 11 minutes?

RileySlowWave wrote:anywho, it’s hard to take in too much of it

It is presented pretty clearly and easy to understand, unless you're not comfortable with the English language.

RileySlowWave wrote:some guesses fall apart which i think this does, based on the static face which rotates

The video I linked says nothing about it being a "reflection". It does show that the moon's discernable features include a map of the earth, however, and that is verifiable with a very satisfactory degree of accuracy.

RileySlowWave wrote:the other mention of it being an x-ray is a head-scratcher

If the source of this X-ray, which would be located under us, happened to rotate (much like the sun and the moon "as above so below"), then this X-ray being projected above us would also rotate. If you had spent a little bit of time investigating the actual model proposed by the "crazy moon map people" before casting it aside as idiocy (much like the globers do with flat earth without even trying to understand the model), you would have understood that.

RileySlowWave wrote:will go w/ cheese until otherwise determined

When all else fails resort to clownery.

rather than arguing, i’ll note this is posted in a thread called “Is the moon a reflection of earth?”

the notion of mapping the moon’s features to earth’s strikes me as a bit of a reach; so yea, i saw the methods being used in the vid & decided i was hardly being persuaded; so gave up [multitasking at work, heh]

English is hard, tho, that could be the problem

glancing ahead: you’re now saying that the earth is an electromagnet generator, which is interesting; i’ll be happy to pursue that notion — thinking about the celestial bodies as like fluorescent lights around a Tesla coil — at least provocative(!)

I agree, its beyond a reach, its fantasy and belief, I was open to this at first, go check my first reply, I was persuaded by the video that the claim is wrong lol. Yeah the original claim by swentz101 was its a reflection and the thread is moon a reflection of earth. This hellothere guy has randomly jumped in with this video and quoting my reply as if Im replying to the video which I wasn't. We were all replying to swentz101 original claim of a reflection and the photos he posted circling north america which looked nothing like north america, including more map  photos of continents that look nothing like real continents, including claims that aren't backed up by anything...

swentz101 wrote:Moon Map fully explained here in this video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Watch before this post gets deleted.

You're doing the same thing again. You're using a map someones made to LOOK like the shapes on the moon.
If you can prove the continents actually look like that and the earth actually looks like that, then you're map that looks identical to the moon is definitely good evidence of your claim the moon is a reflection of the earth and I and other would genuinely consider it a valid claim. but you have no proof the continent or earth looks like that ridiculous map that's literally made to look like the moon because you believe the moon is a reflection of the earth and to fit your confirmation bias.

Kotolos wrote:There is nothing to address. The video of the lines of 'continents' over the moons shapes... still doesn't look like any continent, there is no resemblance
at all  

Are you on crack? The final picture (conversion of the moon spots to cylindrical projection) exactly matches the map of the earth everyone is familiar with once you convert the bounded areas back to squares. The "continental outlines" that don't match are areas where the land is more elevated underwater, with them matching known ocean relief. This makes sense if the moon is an x-ray type projection. You either didn't even try to understand what was being shown there with the conversions between different types of map projections, or this is literally gatekeeping. Leaning toward the latter at this point because I don't think Eric is an idiot.

Moon outlines converted to cylindrical:


Conversion of a standard projection of the "normie" earth map with different geographical/magnetic centers to cylindrical to the usual normie earth map, by converting all bounded areas to squares.


Even if you completely dismiss the fact that the anomalies match ocean relief, the rest of the map being a match to the usual earth map would be an off the charts level of coincidental probability.

RileySlowWave wrote: i rewatched the video above: it seems like the moon ‘map’ has a LOT of room/features contrary to our known world/realm; you mentioned the magnetic pole shifting every 2000 years — i’d love to know the cause & how gradual the effects: it seems that we have documents older than 2000 years from our ‘side’ of the land; so if it’s changing where the sun spins & the icy side is alternately melting & freezing… genuine question

Thanks I really appreciate your curiosity. I have a couple points:
1. They actually admit that Earth has gone through several ice ages and that the current Pole is melting. That is because the 2000 years is almost up which will cause a 30 degree shift of the pole, which actually isn't much, meaning it would take several 2000 year cycles to get the other side of Earth fully warmed and our current known side frozen.

2. It wasn't my video you watched. For a visual explanation of this please check my video here and skip to 21:00.

Moon Map Explained
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Skip to 21:00 and you can see about the magnetic pole shifting.

Admin wrote:

swentz101 wrote:

Slowbutsure wrote: Why would your link get deleted? You came here to try to convince Eric of your theory, he opened a new thread for you to discuss the topic. And now your talking like he's going to censor you? Very strange.

Because the last one I posted did get deleted without explanation... As I've stated I have mad respect for Eric, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to give this a chance.

Your getting us off topic though. Did you even bother to watch the video?

Just to be clear, I have not deleted anything, if any posts/videos are not showing up here it has nothing to do with actions taken by me

Thank you, I never suspected you. Probably one of the moderators?

Kotolos wrote:

swentz101 wrote:Moon Map fully explained here in this video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Watch before this post gets deleted.

You're doing the same thing again. You're using a map someones made to LOOK like the shapes on the moon.
If you can prove the continents actually look like that and the earth actually looks like that, then you're map that looks identical to the moon is definitely good evidence of your claim the moon is a reflection of the earth and I and other would genuinely consider it a valid claim. but you have no proof the continent or earth looks like that ridiculous map that's literally made to look like the moon because you believe the moon is a reflection of the earth and to fit your confirmation bias.

Your actually wrong. The points on the moon in the pictures I have posted were carefully measured out and the distances match with what is consistently known to be the actual distances from place to place. Also flight paths match. Time zones fit. Tropics are perfectly explained and fit. Everything fits the same way it would on your Mason contrived maps.

According to your logic... Your FE maps don't look like a globe and the elite says it's a globe so I guess your maps are wrong. Sounds dumb when I say it? Because it is...

It's very close to the FE maps that is what you don't get. You don't "see" it just like a globe believer doesn't "see" a flat plane when he flies but somehow convinces himself he's "seeing" a curve. Like I already said. This has been tested against FE maps. The main difference is that in my moon map, we can see what happened to places that are found on really old maps but not current day... It's the other side of Earth.

I see no point in jerking back and forth with you. You said you don't see any resemblance. Ok congrats. Maybe you don't see other truths either. I don't care at all. But this has been thoroughly researched and more and more flat earthers are waking up so don't say it's beliefs and nonsense. Your not suddenly gonna wake up to this. You said it looks nothing like what you think the Earth looks like. So you can ignore the mounds upon mounds of data poured into this and I just don't care. This thread was an attempt to edify... It didn't... I don't care at all. I'm happy to share the knowledge but not happy to fire shots back n forth. Id much rather spend the time helping curious people.

I am deeply disappointed that Eric didn't give it a chance though. Why explore so many topics with earnesty just to skip this one entirely? "It sounds silly" well when I first saw a flat earth video I was laughing my ass off but look at me now. The truth usually sounds ridiculous at first

hellothere wrote:

Kotolos wrote:There is nothing to address. The video of the lines of 'continents' over the moons shapes... still doesn't look like any continent, there is no resemblance
at all  

Are you on crack? The final picture (conversion of the moon spots to cylindrical projection) exactly matches the map of the earth everyone is familiar with once you convert the bounded areas back to squares. The "continental outlines" that don't match are areas where the land is more elevated underwater, with them matching known ocean relief. This makes sense if the moon is an x-ray type projection. You either didn't even try to understand what was being shown there with the conversions between different types of map projections, or this is literally gatekeeping. Leaning toward the latter at this point because I don't think Eric is an idiot.

Moon outlines converted to cylindrical:


Conversion of a standard projection of the "normie" earth map with different geographical/magnetic centers to cylindrical to the usual normie earth map, by converting all bounded areas to squares.


Even if you completely dismiss the fact that the anomalies match ocean relief, the rest of the map being a match to the usual earth map would be an off the charts level of coincidental probability.

Bro stop just stop he can't "see" it still, even with the images in front of him. At this point I'm picturing him with his glasses laying on the floor, screaming that he can't see anything. This whole time we misunderstood. He just needs his glasses. He can't see. Stop showing him pictures or videos cuz he can't see them.

hellothere wrote:

Kotolos wrote:There is nothing to address. The video of the lines of 'continents' over the moons shapes... still doesn't look like any continent, there is no resemblance
at all  

Are you on crack? The final picture (conversion of the moon spots to cylindrical projection) exactly matches the map of the earth everyone is familiar with once you convert the bounded areas back to squares. The "continental outlines" that don't match are areas where the land is more elevated underwater, with them matching known ocean relief. This makes sense if the moon is an x-ray type projection. You either didn't even try to understand what was being shown there with the conversions between different types of map projections, or this is literally gatekeeping. Leaning toward the latter at this point because I don't think Eric is an idiot.

Moon outlines converted to cylindrical:


Conversion of a standard projection of the "normie" earth map with different geographical/magnetic centers to cylindrical to the usual normie earth map, by converting all bounded areas to squares.


Even if you completely dismiss the fact that the anomalies match ocean relief, the rest of the map being a match to the usual earth map would be an off the charts level of coincidental probability.

can you give a clear answer.

can you please post a photo of what you think the continents/earth looks like.



I understand what you're saying but you dont see to understand or see those photos are literally done in such a way so you can reverse engineer it so when you do the conversion of the moon spots to cylindrical projection it looks like the Mercator projection which is whats commonly used to project what earth and continent looks like for our daily ease of use, BUT the Mercator projection is an inaccurate projection which changes drastically changes the size of the continents and warps them and changes their orientation, which means converting it to a cylindrical projection to overlay on the moon even if it did match (which I dont see or believe it does match) still doesn't mean or prove moon is a reflection or projection of earth, because the square mercator projection map is a non-accurate representation of earth. Greenland is 9x larger on this map than in real life, in real size it wouldn't fit the massive size of greenland you need to fit on the moon. Which goes back to my original post where swentz101 claimed this about greenland being larger in real life without providing any proof which I refuted (go back and read). Also Russia is 66% smaller in real life.

.. The "Moon outlines converted to cylindrical" photos..even with all this in mind, I still don't see it matching the moon, They literally DON'T even match the moon spots and shapes well or properly at all like you're claiming even including the so-called ocean anomalies (which by the way alot of what appear on google maps dont actually exist. its todo with google maps/earth photos how they stitch together the photos because its the MERCATOR PROJECTION which is an inaccurate warped projection to give us a easy to view and use map and they use the large part of the oceans to focus those necessary inaccuracies of the mercator projection so they aren't on the continents)

This is so flimsy and its like you're working backwards with your BELIEF the moon is a projection/reflection of earth and trying to find any evidence and working backwards and reverse engineering things to try make this to barley appear (which I don't see on your photos it appears with any accuracy at all) to show a projection of earth.. like jamming a square into a circle and claiming its the square is a circle.

Does anyone else see and understand what I've explained?
@Admin Eric would you agree with this?

I really see this as wanting to believe this is true, and not because you've found this because the evidence bares the claim out..

If anyone ball-earth believe was researching flat earth and came across this claim and you're maps and photos, they'd see people putting random shapes that still don't look like the moon on the moon and claiming its a projection of earth, the very next thing they'd likely do is laugh and do a 180

swentz101 wrote: "It's the other side of Earth."

"But this has been thoroughly researched and more and more flat earthers are waking up so don't say it's beliefs and nonsense. Your not suddenly gonna wake up to this. You said it looks nothing like what you think the Earth looks like. So you can ignore the mounds upon mounds of data poured into this and I just don't care."

I am deeply disappointed that Eric didn't give it a chance though. Why explore so many topics with earnesty just to skip this one entirely? "It sounds silly" well when I first saw a flat earth video I was laughing my ass off but look at me now. The truth usually sounds ridiculous at first

To be clear, you don't believe the conventional flat earth model? (that is the accepted model on IFERS)?
You believe earth has another side? Is this correct?

Well I'd like to see some thorough research cause it hasn't been posted, I was willing to look into this at first, until the 'evidence' you posted compelled me to believe the opposite of what you're claiming.
What mounds upon mounds of data? I asked you to share originally and no one did so far. What was posted was a circle of the moon saying it looked like North America which many people said "Huh? Where?". Then some ridiculous map that has no evidence that's what earth looks like. You cant say all the maps we're looking at are fake and then have a map that supports your claim and claim that map is real... Then some video going over this map was posted which changed or proved nothing. Then it was claimed when the map is converted back to squares from cylindrical it looks like mercator pojection but the mercator projection is a seriously distorted map RE: continent sizes and oceans, which you guys also claimed all the maps are wrong but use such a map to prove your moon map looks like earth. Then when you put this map over the moon... It really still looks nothing like the moon (or the earth) and everyone who doesn't already believe this moon earth projection thing also agrees it looks nothing like the moon including Eric.

Putting a janky as hell unproven map that if you really reach and squint barley looks like the moon or earth and claiming that as you're holy grail only evidence as mounds and mounds of evidence that I'm being ignorant to or not understanding a is ridiculous assertion.

Whats more beneficial is some genuine flat earth research to add to this website with demonstrable, real life observable scientific evidence (which I'm now going to do, not go around in circles about this) instead of this moon projection claim which lets face it, any non-flatearther researching flat earth will be turned away by, and flat-earthers thinking this is silly.

What evidence you believers of this have posted is here on this thread, and mine and others refutations and rebuttals are also here - If anyone comes across this they can read your 'evidence' and my 'refutations', and decide what they think, also whilst knowing that most flat earthers in general and on here do not believe this moon projection claim

swentz101 wrote:Moon Map fully explained here in this video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Watch before this post gets deleted.

Finally got the chance to watch this. Very interesting for the most part. Well worth the viewing although I don't agree with everything totally.

swentz101 wrote:Moon Map fully explained here in this video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Watch before this post gets deleted.

Finally got the chance to watch this. Very interesting for the most part. The map was well presented along with the explanation of the moon as an image . Well worth the viewing although am not convinced about the precession of the equinox stuff.

Kotolos wrote:many words

Did you miss the part where A which matches the moon map, converts to B which is literally Gleason's?
I guess you did.

I found two links indicating the Moon is a reflection of larger flat Earth.  The concept I mentioned back there, to whet your appetite.    

If you watch the first he talks about 'time layers'.  That's the second link.    

The moon is a reflection of a gigantic earth , final proof !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5swdNuWCA0

Crater Earth : The Magic Mirror Machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8COl2PArkY

Godgevlamste is literal schizoposting.

hellothere wrote:Godgevlamste is literal schizoposting.

What does this mean please? Excuse my ignorance.

The sun produces all of the electromagnetic spectrum . X-rays reflected from the surface of earth to the crystalline dome could result in the holographic lunar image. I think this a very reasonable , not crazy at all.

We already are able to produce hologram on film. I made one myself many moons ago ha. This is a research forum and we should seek the truth. We are not here to be indoctrinated. There is no visible evidence that supports the moon as a sphere.

hellothere wrote:

Kotolos wrote:many words

Did you miss the part where A which matches the moon map, converts to B which is literally Gleason's?
I guess you did.

I saw, but it still doesn't look anything like the moon when you overlay it..

It was said no maps are accurate - and you're ignoring half of what I wrote with the originals claims of land masses being larger in real life but we are being lied to because if you look at official km/2 land mass sizes they look different (larger than others) compared to their km/2 size because of how they look on the Mercator map with no proof whilst simultaneously claiming no maps are accurate.

Kotolos wrote:
I saw, but it still doesn't look anything like the moon when you overlay it..

The moon spots on the waxing half moon absolutely look like an admittedly distorted AE map. It's not surprising that it would be distorted if it's an electromagnetic projection. If you add the fact that "unexplained" colored areas match elevated underwater land, that's more than enough to take seriously.

Saying all maps are wrong does not imply nothing about them is accurate. You're just debating strawmen.

hellothere wrote:It's not surprising that it would be distorted if it's an electromagnetic projection.

A question to work through.  

Would the electromagnetic projection be natural or synthesized by some unseen technology?

"If' we say creation is billions, if not infinite, years old/in the past? ie beyond our little minds. And the moon is a photo of the day of creation, then why couldn't earth change shape?
Lumera (?) sunk, creating the Drake Passage. Plenty of 'volcano' created island around the place.
I bet all the new islands in the china sea aren't there etc..
I'm saying Tycho is above the North Pole/the home of Polaris. and possibly every 2,160 years Polaris moves dragging the whole cosmos 30 degrees and the Antarctic 'ice circle' along with it.
Plunging the whole plane into an ice age as the ice melts on one side and refreezes on the other. Then Earth slowly heats up over the remaining years of the 2,160 allotment, until as we are seeing now - as we move into a new age (dawning of Aquarius and all that)- a peaking of temperatures (Do not believe any past temp BS, will be Freemason etal buggery) and the major rivers drying up. Earth is a closed system, with a 12 bar heater running 24/7. it needs a cool dip every now and then, otherwise Earth would burn up. So yeah the sun is leaving Sagittarius and is on the cusp of entering Scorpio @ noon on the southern solstice (hasn't been in Capricorn for nearly 2,160 years BTW) The evil fools thing they can postpone this event, but if they can't the less awake people after the event the better - hence the current mass kill off I guess. .... Just some thoughts      

The Americas seem way too small in these maps.

Mirrors reflect light. Ice can be used as a mirror but does have poor reflectivity. The poor reflectivity of ice could explain the Moon's dull color.

Consider the Moon to be a reflection of a bigger Earth on an ice mirror, where/what is the light source?

Kotolos wrote:
...
can you please post a photo of what you think the continents/earth looks like.

..
Greenland is 9x larger on this map than in real life, in real size it wouldn't fit the massive size of greenland you need to fit on the moon. Which goes back to my original post where swentz101 claimed this about greenland being larger in real life without providing any proof which I refuted...

If anyone ball-earth believe was researching flat earth and came across this claim...

1. I already posted many pics of what the continents look like along with a lengthy video, I'm not sure what else to do for you.

2. I was actually mistaken about the Greenland comment, it's small even on the moon map.

3. Stop worrying about what ball Earthers believe. The moon map is not a topic for ball Earthers. It's a deep topic for people who are already flat earthers. Think of it this way... If someone is asleep, you don't try to wake them up with the deepest conspiracies available. The person needs to start small and build up to it. The FE is a deep conspiracy in and of itself but you don't start with the moon map. That comes deep into the journey. There are 0 ball Earthers coming to this site looking for FE evidence anyways so I don't understand why you keep going back to that.

4. Eric is cool and all but are you saying you can't think for yourself? If he backed the moon map you would too? That's ridiculous bro, form your own opinions. He got this one wrong dude.

[quote="Kotolos"]

swentz101 wrote: "It's the other side of Earth."

To be clear, you don't believe the conventional flat earth model? (that is the accepted model on IFERS)?
You believe earth has another side? Is this correct?

Dude, it's really frustrating trying to explain this to you when your not genuinely looking into it, you obviously didn't even check out my video...

Two sides:

Picture a plate, it's a flat circle... Now if you put two steaks on different sides of the plate, you would say that one steak is on one side and the other on the other....

On one side of Earth is the current known Earth... And on the other side is the land which the ancients resided which is currently frozen and uninhabited.

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:

swentz101 wrote:Moon Map fully explained here in this video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BvlKWLxCNnSN/

Watch before this post gets deleted.

Finally got the chance to watch this. Very interesting for the most part.  Well worth the viewing although I don't agree with everything totally.

Dear God, thank you! I wish some of the other guys on here would watch it rather than run around in circles. Can I ask which parts you disagree with?

colander bowl wrote:I found two links indicating the Moon is a reflection of larger flat Earth.  The concept I mentioned back there, to whet your appetite.    

If you watch the first he talks about 'time layers'.  That's the second link.    

The moon is a reflection of a gigantic earth , final proof !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5swdNuWCA0

Crater Earth : The Magic Mirror Machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8COl2PArkY

Thanks I'll check these out tomorrow.