Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:16:50 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
OK -- let's start again -- me in black!!!
Regarding Global Warming. I did not lambast it. What I said (and this is from memory) was that all the evidence I had (short of seeing it) was that I was inclined to believe that it was unreliable and I gave reasons why I believed this to be so. Having now seen it (and a discussion panel assessment) I think the producer was -- in a previous life -- a snake oil salesman, and I do not shrink from my previous position.
The word "shrink" shows that you would subconsciencely view a change in your position as some form of defeat. However, I respect the fact that you did indeed watch the programme and evaluate it for yourself. If you maintain your position, then fair enough.
I have no problem with that, if you are genuine. In the British tradition, our laws are based on an adversarial tradition. It is entirely reasonable to carry this into other arenas including whether or not the Earth moves. You make a public statement, I question it, you counter. So long as I limit my attacks to items which I assess as being unsupportable, and I supply a counter argument with supporting evidence, I can't see that I have done anything which requires apology. There is no enmity in my position -- I just think my position is stronger than yours and that -- not only do I have the right to say so -- this is the path to increased knowledge. Surely this latter should be the guiding light for all of us?
True, but I am not hinting at any form of apology, so you probably read a little too much into my comment.
'...never said that the chopper would touch down at the other side of America...' No, that's true -- you didn't. But you did choose to support the helicopter example (which did mention four hours and trans-USA) while ignoring the example which I drew from your assertions. Deflection?
I ought to have qualified my support for the helicopter example. I do usually pick up things like that, but could not be bothered I suppose.
Regarding Apollo and laser retro-reflectors. We've been this route previously and my views are on record. I am however intrigued by your assertion that these artifacts -- should they exist -- could be used to resolve the helio/geo debate. Further, I am curious, not to mention -- it would seem -- ignorant. Would you explain how this might be resolved? I've given it several seconds consideration |[:-) but no solution suggests itself.
It's based upon the light taking (off the top of my head) about 2.25 seconds to reach the reflector and the same amount of time to return. In this ~ 4.5 seconds, the World would have turned in the heliocentric scenario, but not the geostationary one, and so the return signal would be very significantly displaced from the firing location.
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.