Dear Neville, The drawing was just a thought in that it may help explain. The following was taken from your paper on this subject from your website. 'But this is not what we see. Rotation about the ecliptic polar axis is demonstrable for the Sun and, to a close approximation, most of the planets, but not for the stars. Yearly circular motion of the stars, irrespective of whether one assumes it to be real or apparent, about the ecliptic poles is not observed.' What I was trying visualise was what kind of trail would the heliocentric model stars make over a period of one year? I know they don't because of the 'coincidence' fudge factor, but if there were no fudge factor what would we expect to see in the heliocentric model? If you can explain it to me then I would be happy to try and illustrate it. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: Neville Jones To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:11 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? Dear Jack, I've only just seen this offer (inbox.com has been down and I couldn't receive anything until today, when I found > 80 e-mails awaiting me). The diagram I came up with to illustrate the point is Fig. 2 of the Celestial Poles page. In this diagram I do not state what the radius of the sphere is, nor what the rotation period is, nor what the poles and axis are. These are unimportant. In the real (observational) world, there are two axes of rotation. Paul Deema would be "correct" (in the heliocentric meaning of the word) if these two axes coincided, but they do not. Hence the disproof of heliocentricity. Since we can see star trails about one, we must be able to see them about the other. It is EXACTLY the same method of production and irrespective of the model (geo or helio). If you can produce a better method of displaying this, then please do so and throw it in to the group. Neville www.GeocentricUniverse.com