[geocentrism] Re: Navigation and rotational direction
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:28:04 +0000 (GMT)
Nick,
Every now and again I go back and do a little more work on a paper that I wrote
some time back on this geocentric/heliocentric aspect to the alleged Apollo
landings. God willing, I will send it to you (and anyone else who wants a copy)
soon. I assume that .pdf will be okay?
Neville.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Neville.
You're right. I know where the smart money is.
My concern is whether you are backing yourself into a corner that
doesn't need to be there. It would come down to Actual Proof of Landing
= Bible goes = Geocentric wrong.
Can you tell me the speed of the moon, where it was on its orbit when
the rocket took off, whether the rocket heads to an orbiting pathway
(and whether this is E to W or W to E), and how long it would take to
get to the orbit level of the moon.
Thanks,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 6:09 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Navigation and rotational direction
Nick,
Yes, I am totally and absolutely convinced that NASA claims contradict
God's written word. The loading and attainable velocities of each of the
three stages of a Saturn V make your suggestion of changing direction
impossible. It's maximum speed is 27,000 mph and Armstrong was supposed
to have landed on the Moon with "only a few seconds of fuel remaining."
You can't have your cake and eat it, Nick. Either NASA or the Bible have
to go. But don't worry - you and I both know where the smart money lies!
Best wishes,
Neville.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." wrote:
Neville,
I'm no rocket scientist, but I do tend to believe in the geostatic
position. You state that "In a geostatic cosmos, it could not possibly
have landed safely on the Moon." This means that if other undisputed
proof comes forward that the moon landing actually safely occurred
(let's say you got to go on the trip and were satisfied you were on the
Moon), then you'd have to conclude that we don't have a geostatic
cosmos, if your stated conclusion is correct. Therefore, are you
absolutely certain your stated position is correct or is there some
other way the rocket could have landed safely in a geostatic cosmos,
e.g. it took off going east, banked left or right (I don't know which),
and either it caught up to the orbiting moon or the orbiting moon caught
up to the rocket (I have no idea which goes faster).
Regards,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:13 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Navigation and rotational direction
Philip,
2. Do you accept that the Moon goes E->W in a geostatic (non-rotating
World) system?
<<< I accept that most certainly. >>>
Okay, then let's stick with this one for now. Take two sheets of paper
and draw circles representing the World and Moon on each one, as if you
were looking down at the fictitious 'solar system' from the north
celestial pole. Head the first 'Geocentric' and the second
'Heliocentric'.
Now on the first, the World stays still and the Moon goes around
clockwise (E->W as you agreed).
On the second, the World spins anticlockwise (W->E) and the Moon goes
around anticlockwise (W->E).
Which way does the Saturn V have to be fired in the first system?
Which way in the second system?
In reality, they were launched from the east coast of America, out over
the Atlantic Ocean. In a geostatic cosmos, it could not possibly have
landed safely on the Moon.
Neville.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
