[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:25:44 +1000

To  Mikes criticism below of Neville's approach I respond. 
Mike you are correct , in your standard orbital mechanics.. I sort of thought 
of it.. But my lateral mind, will look for alternatives., simply because I have 
a more compulsive reason for doing so. 

Even though you may not be prepared to look for an alternative physical reason 
to explain the physical observations that support conventional explanations of 
them, surely you cannot deny us, if you have the true open mind of the 
scientist, the right to think laterally; to seek such an alternative. The 
proper way to refute our "fantasies" if you will, is to follow the line of 
approach that I posted in questioning Roberts theory of the plenum, (or my 
aether) where in I asked him to explain what would happen with a polar orbit. 

You haveto admit, that NO ONE has launched a polar orbit from the geographical 
pole, which just might prove something.which an equatorial launch cannot. 

Can you not recognise that your stubborn adhesion to scientific  convention is 
just as stubborn as The Biblical geocentrists?  I expect more from an avowed 
athiest. When I was there, or at least a doubter, I just loved Startreks 
transporter "Beam me up Scottie" 

You will never ever invent a matter transporter, with your attitude, but 
someone else, another Faraday might. Likewise, you will die, never knowing if 
maybe perhaps the Bible was right, and that you had a spiritual  soul, and that 
there was a God.. after all.. Maybe too late then, if you were not a perfect 
person in every other respect. 

Philip.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike 
  To: joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?


  Hi Philip,

  Philip wrote:
  > More to you later, as I have worked out without NASA's info your 
  > logical conclusions re the easterly launch of appollo, annd accept 
  > that in the Geocentric sense, using their newtonian mechanics of 
  > motion, there is a problem. This is why I posed the alternative 
  > effects of the plenum (aether) simply because I do believe we went
  > there.

  "Thier" Newtonian mechanics is not even approximately applicable in the 
  geostationary frame for anything except problems down here on earth. 
  Indeed, Neville could have equally shown that the moon could not 
  maintain its current orbit given that it is moving at over 60,000mph. 
  All he has demonstrated is that his interpretation of the bible and his 
  incorrect application of conventional science cannot be reconciled.  He 
  has shown nothing about actual conventional science.

  Regards,
  Mike.

Other related posts: