[geocentrism] Re: Voyager
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:04:43 +0100
On 18 Aug, Dr. Neville Jones <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "So, you do have a problem with satellites in the 22,300 mile high
> 'geosynchronous' orbit, the ones that are allowing you to watch the
> Olympics at the moment?"
>
> I'm not watching the Olympics at the moment, because I do not have a
> television.
You're not suggesting that that removes the satellites?
>
> "You believe they don't exist, is that right?"
>
> That is correct. There are geocentrists that accept them, but I'm not
> one of them. The electronics would be completely destroyed by radiation,
> although you consider that to be "old hat."
You're very good at making completely untrue statements which you
can't justify! There is plenty of evidence that you are wrong.
>
> "What about the satellites of the GPS network, 12,000 miles up, that
> assist aircraft in navigation and lost hikers to find their way home?
> You believe that they are fake, is that right?"
>
> Most GPS is achieved by ground-based stations (the existence of which is
> "explained" by the satellites having to beam down to them, rather than
> to a GPS receiver).
This is another incorrect statement. How do you explain the fact
that portable GPS devices work perfectly in remote Welsh valleys where
there is no radio reception?
>
> "Did you fly anywhere for your holidays? Then you are a hypocrite Dr
> Jones."
> Why, because the pilot was not having to constantly take account of the
> rotation of the World?
No. Because the pilot used satellites to determine where the plane
was, to keep you safe!
>
> "Firstly, The arguments about Van Allen and solar flare are tediously
> old hat and are debunked."
>
> I gave you some of the reasons that you asked me for, but they were not
> to your liking. Perhaps I should give you more, and you let me know when
> you do like one of them?
They weren't to our liking because they are not true, and can be
proved not to be true. You'll have to do better than this.
>
> "Secondly, I fail to see what the direction of the Moon's travel round
> the Earth has to do with our ability to send probes there."
>
> NASA sends its rockets off from the east coast of America, heading
> across the Atlantic. I.e., they travel west to east. However, in a
> geostatic system, the Moon (and most other things) are going east to
> west. The Moon and the capsule would be approaching each other at almost
> 90,000 mph. Does this answer your question?
Yes. It is admirable proof that the geocentric theory is rubbish!
As well as having the moon travelling at nearly 100,000 mph, it has the
stars moving faster than light! (Oh, I forgot. You can allow this because
you don't accept any scientific laws. But I wonder why you use scientific
laws when you write your "papers"?)
>
> "Let's hear your reasons. But before you start, don't bother to try any
> of the following: no stars, non-parallel shadows, film temperature,
> non-moving backgrounds, shadowed objects being visible. They are all
> standard Hoax Conspiracy arguments and all totally worthless."
>
> Before we start, you need to learn some respect.
I'm afraid you have to earn respect. So far we have not seen any
logical arguments for your theories.
Alan
Other related posts:
