[geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:26:23 +0000 (GMT)
Bernie B
There is no satisfaction to be had in trying to debate with you -- you just
keep stepping sideways, changing the subject, moving the goal posts. This
Politician's Response -- "Just give an answer, ANY answer!" -- doesn't cut the
mustard. Simply staying out of reach of your pursuer does not demonstrate
ascendancy.
A verse from the Zohar, a planetary distance, anything of substance ... Fat
chance!
Paul D
________________________________
From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 4:13:49 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
Paul,
1.
CreationWise Cartoon"
src="http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWageofearth.gif";
width=420>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/CW_TOC.asp
2.
Question: "Do you think Government funding for the Astronomical Sciences
should be increased?"
Answer: "I am an amateur cosmologist but I think it would be wrong for
The State
( "The Government" ) to confiscate your property and give it to me. Nothing in
the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority to take MONEY from
Farmer Jones and give it to Space Scientist Smith."
Bernie
--- On Tue, 10/28/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 8:42 AM
Bernie B
It seems Marshall H is more or less confirming for me what you can't or won't
or lack the courage to admit -- namely that you have no idea about Solar System
distances and would be well advised to cease commenting on this matter.
Further, since neither him nor you nor the geocentric hypothesis are able to
ascribe numbers to your model, how can you expect anyone to be swayed by your
protestations? You really have no credibility at all.
Concerning the Zohar/Pharisee/Kabbalah/Religion stuff. Marshal, in his usual
ebullient jingoistic manner repeats this mantra seemingly endlessly yet never
provides so much as a verse to support his contentions, let alone a reasoned
argument. How you/he expect(s) that I will admit anything along the lines he
suggests from my current position of ignorance in this matter escapes me. (And
I assure you that I have no intention of investing any of the time remaining to
me in investigation of this line of wool-gathering). So far as I am concerned,
this fantasy exists only in the head of Marshall H and most certainly has had
no input to NASA's philosophy. Certainly I do not base my position on any
coincidence, real or imagined, with any 'creation scenario'. And about this
point in his comments, he seems to have lost track of whether it is you or me
to whom he is speaking. Then he tops it off with the comment that the Pharisee
Model is built upon and
cannot survive without heliocetricity. Well, can you imagine the depth of my
apathy on the subject of just what the Pharisee Model is based upon?
Paul D
________________________________
From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 12:33:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
......You will recall that--while it would not surprise me if "solar system"
distances were proven to be exaggerated--I have maintained that it isn't
necessary--nor even important--to throw out the standard distances in order to
effectively undercut the Pharisee Big Bang Evolutionary Cosmology in all its
assumptive parts (viz., the Kabbala's 15 billion year old Big Bang,
heliocentricity, relativity, expanding universe, parallel universes,
superstrings, etc.). Star trail photos alone point out the original
heliocentric assumption upon which all the rest stands.
I have also been--and remain--uncommitted to challenging Moon and Mars
landings, etc., except to point out that they all confirm NASA's
Kabbalist-directed "Origins Agenda" to find "our cosmic roots"...always
underscoring the 4 billion year age of the moon, and letting it be known that
the real purpose of the whole space enterprise is to pump evolutionism and,
more explicitly, extraterrestrial evolutionism, etc.
As for Deema's growing smugness, I think throwing in those solar system
distances and landings, etc., only provides him with just the kind of
ammunition that serves him best. My suggestion would be to "nicely" get him to
admit that the model of the universe he embraces is derived concept for concept
(as above) from a "holy book" (Zohar/Kabbala) of the Pharisee Religion. It's
certainly his business if he wants to embrace the "creation scenario" of the
Pharisee Religion instead of the "creation scenario" from the Bible of the
Christian Religion. No problem. Just don't believe your prefered model is
based on "secular" science. It isn't, and the world needs to know that. When
it does know that, then it is a short work to demonstrate that the entire
Pharisee Model is built upon and cannot survive without the heliocentricity
assumption.
I'm so glad Paul likes my technicolor style!
Marshall
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008, 10:11 AM
Paul D,
Here is what was posted:
"The average distance between Jupiter and the Sun is 778 million km."
It should have read - HELIOCENTRISTS SAY or MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS SAY that
"The average distance between Jupiter and the Sun is 778 million km."
I don't believe this distance LIE.
Do you think that deception may exist in the Space Sciences but it is
only around 5.1% of the time? The correct figure is ten times that,
being over 51% of the time. That means people should stop being so
gullible AND LOOK FOR deception and lies 51 percent of the time.
This is what you don't comprehend.
The same Mainsteam Science bunch that brought you heliocentricity
has lied about the Moon Landing, Mars Landing, Global Warming
and other Mega Deceptions and it is just shrugged off by Science PhD's!!!
Bernie
Bernie
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Centrifical force
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008, 3:33 AM
Bernie B
Under the subject "I do not see me circling the sun." (reproduced at the
bottom) to which you have for some reason best known to yourself sought to move
this matter, you have suggested below the course I might take in order to
answer my question concerning how your four processes could be used to
substantiate your assertion.
Let me refresh your memory. Here is the question (with emphasis) to help you to
not miss or misconstrue the point-
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Bernie B
You said - "The average distance between Jupiter and the Sun is 778 million
km."From http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/ we have -
True, NON-HYPOTHETICAL Science ( observational data, our senses, physical
experiments, and logic )...Explain to me how you used these four processes to
substantiate your assertion.Later perhaps we can address the next point.
Paul D
PS You may want to fix this line up - Moreover, the Intelligible Christian
Bible'sBible's Voluntarily-funded Geocentric/Geostatic Model of the ...
See how I care for your well-being?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Note that the assertion for which I requested an explanation was -
"The average distance between Jupiter and the Sun is 778 million km." (And
incidentally Neville T also managed to misunderstand this plain English). I was
notasking how you used these principles to make your whole damn shootin' match
appear reasonable. Just your assertion that Jupiter exists at an average
distance of 778 million km from the Sun. Clear now?
Concerning your suggestions as to how I might become convinced of the
correctness of your whole damn shootin' match which ended with - And if that
doesn't convince you of Geocentric Correctness then what will?, I offer in the
following paragraph, some comments.
My geocentric journey began some time ago at Marshall Hall's Technicolour
Emporium of Highly Disputable "Facts" so I know what is there. But I'm not
seeking his opinion of how you used those four processes, so clearly, searching
his site would not help. Neville T's latest Version of Reality similarly will
not help. I also know what is at 'earthdeception' having visited it regularly
to make sure that you are neither quoting nor misquoting me there.Besides, most
of it is from Marshall Hall's Technicolour Emporium, or Neville's Version of
Reality or from this forum. Rather than all that printing and waste of paper
and time reading and resting, I took the simple approach - I just did a Ctrl-F
(for Find) 778. It wasn't found. There was only one find for 'Jupiter' but that
wasn't in relation to distances. So -- again, please -
Explain to me how you used these four processes ( observational data, our
senses, physical experiments, and logic ) to substantiate your assertion that
Jupiter exists at an average distance from the Sun of 778 million km.
Congatulations on fixing that error.
As a concession to you, I will tell you what will convince me of Geocentric
Correctness. I will be convinced when your gurus publish the results of real
experiments -- with maths -- which explain the workings of the Universe, or at
the absolute very least, the Solar System; when space exploration planned and
successfully executed on the basis of your previously published workings of the
Universe with pictures showing that Jupiter is indeed a rocky planet (which,
for the record, is NOT predicted by heliocentric theory (unless of course you
can show me an article published in a refereed mainstream science journal
(Nature, Science etc) or even Popular Mechanics if you're stretched, which
indicates that it is)).
As a further concession to you, I'll also indicate how you, Bernie of the
Brauer family, can prove for yourself, that Jupiter has an atmosphere. Go to
your local amateur astronomy club and ask them if they would be prepared to let
you look at Jupiter through an eight inch Newtonian or better telescope
intermittently over a period of hours and even days and to take photos through
it of what you saw. This would best be done when Jupiter is at superior
conjunction. If they are at all reluctant, tell them that you wish to prove
to others -- that's me |[:-) -- that Jupiter is a rocky planet and that the
Earth is the centre of the Universe. In the event they are still reluctant, you
should repeat the request of the club in the next suburb -- one of them is
almost certain to accomodate you. Good viewing.
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul Deema wrote:
Explain to me how you used these four processes
( observational data, our senses, physical experiments, and logic ) to
substantiate your assertion. Later perhaps we can address the next point.
Paul,
Please see my webpage compilation at:
http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception
and two of the links:
1. www.realityreviewed.com
2. www.fixedearth.com
then print out every page, then read every page,
then rest two weeks, then read every page again.
And if that doesn't convince you of Geocentric Correctness
then what will?
Quote:
"But the sun circles me, I do not see me circling the sun."
Bernie
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
________________________________
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail.
________________________________
Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get
Started.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
Other related posts:
![http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWageofearth.gif"](http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWageofearth.gif"){kind=link}
