[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:55:55 -0500
But as Dr. Jones says, the models are not all the same "mirror images." If
the earth is stationary, that changes everything. What those "everythigns"
are, I'm not sure. The phases of Venus to start, something Dr. Jones proved
can be observed from this vantage point using the geostatic model that it
would predict its phases accurately, compared to the other two models
(geocentric w/ spinning earth and heliocentric).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> Cheryl,
>
> It's been awhile since I read the lengthy link, though it is definitely
> excellent. I actually forgot this point that Sungenis made that you
copied
> here. It is a pretty good point about "Hubble's Constant". Use the old
one
> and things are moving faster than 'c'. Hmmm. Interesting and very
> convenient sounding.
>
> As for the taking pictures of the earth, why would they? I mean, in a
> contest between two equal rivals, sure, you take the pictures. But in the
> geo/helio battle, what has the other side got to gain? I can kind of see
> their attitude. It's superior sounding, yes, but reasonable, given the
fact
> that they have relativity to fall back on.
>
> Besides, Cheryl, it's probably easier to take the attitude approach than
to
> explain all about relativity and why they couldn't prove the case either
way
> for every time somebody presses them with this "filming the earth"
question.
> You think?
>
> Gary Shelton
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:08 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> > Gary -- Wow, that was interesting.
> >
> > This quote from Hoge: "At any rate, don't you think it's a rather
> > remarkable coincidence that the alleged "inertial force from the stars"
> just
> > happens to precisely balance the gravity of the earth at exactly the
same
> > altitude at which a satellite would orbit the earth once a day if the
> earth
> > rotated? Doesn't that raise a red flag for you? It sure does for me."
> >
> >
> > And this from Sungenis: "
> >
> > By the way, Hubble's constant used to tell us that the galaxies were
> > receding away less than the speed of light. But that was when we could
> only
> > see about 500 or so megaparsecs into the universe. Now that we can see
500
> > gigaparsecs into the universe, Hubble's constant means that the galaxies
> are
> > receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. But if the galaxies
are
> > receding at the speed of light or faster, then that means we are moving
at
> > the speed of light or faster. Obviously, that is not the case. It's no
> > surprise, then, that Hubble's "constant" is being constantly revised.
> > Speaking of Hubble, did you ever wonder why the Hubble space telescope
> doesn
> > 't take time-lapse photography of the earth to prove that the earth is
> > rotating? A curious lacuna for you to answer.
> >
> > Hoge's reply: I figure it's either part of a vast government conspiracy
> to
> > dupe people into believing that the earth rotates, or else NASA has
better
> > things to do with its resources than try to prove to the six living
> > geocentrists that they're wrong. Besides, weather satellites take
> time-lapse
> > pictures of the earth all the time and that doesn't prove anything to
you.
> > Why would it be any different if the pictures were taken by Hubble?
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary -- do you think this exchange is edited? Why doesn't Sungenis ever
> > answer? (i.e. do you think he provided good rebuttals that were cut out
> of
> > the exchange?) What's published just shows Sungenis just dropping the
> > argument and moving on to something else.
> >
> > Do you or anyone else have answers to these things? Can, in fact, the
> > weather satellites document the rotating of the earth? Once again, my
> > understanding of logic, common sense and human nature causes me to be
> blown
> > away by the nonchalant attitude of the helio people (such as Hoge) that
> > they don't need to document or prove anything with timelapse photos from
> > "their" satellites or astronauts, even if they (the helio's) could
easily
> do
> > so. They reason their position is so obvious, so establsihed, so
> evident --
> > even though an admitted theory -- that if they could prove it easily
they
> > still wouldn't even bother to do so because it's just "not necessary."
> >
> > I realize the point you've all been making that no matter which one is
> > moving, it will appear that the other is moving from either vantage
point
> > (i.e. the moon, Hubble wherever that is, or Voyager, weather satellite,
> > whatever). But why don't they offer that as an explanation for why
they
> > don't attempt to document? Rather, they say they don't attempt to
> document
> > by eye-witness or time-lapse photos because it's "not necessary."
> >
> > See my point? Cheryl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> >
> >
> > > Cheryl,
> > >
> > > I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good link
> to
> > a
> > > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge
> firmly
> > > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and
polar)
> > > solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
> > >
> > > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate, but
I
> > > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
> > >
> > > That link is:
> > > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
> > >
> > > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable indeed.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Gary Shelton
> > >
> > > Gary Shelton
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:41 AM
> > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Philip -- If I need to do more homework, just say so. I don't want
> you
> > > all
> > > > to have to spoonfeed me everything. I sure do appreciate all you're
> > > > teaching me, pulling me up to speed really fast. Hopefully when
> you're
> > > > through filling me in, I can have something good to contribute in
> > return.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again. Cheryl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>
Other related posts:
