Dear Jack, Oh, just leave Rob Glover and his atheistic buddies to do what they want - dish out snide comments at will, but react in anger when they get their own medicine back. There has been no rebuttal because they have no rebuttal. But wait just a minute, didn't Rob Glover say that the paper had been "trounced" on BadAstronomy? Yet now he's saying that it "hasn't been argued." Neville. Jack Lewis <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: And aother one from Rob! Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glover, Rob" To: "'Jack Lewis'" Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Celestial poles and Badastronomy > It probably hasn't been argued about because Neville Jones has zero > credibility among the denizens of BadAstronomy. If he thinks he has a valid > case, he should go there and argue it, rather than snipe at us being 'Homer > Simpsons'. > > Rob Glover > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Lewis [mailto:jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 06 October 2004 22:25 > To: Glover, Rob > Subject: Celestial poles and Badastronomy > > > Desar Rob, > I thought you might be interested in this! > > Jack > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dr. Neville Jones" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:24 PM > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tycho Brahe vs. Ptolemy > > > > Dear All, > > > > First the good news ... I have heard and seen no valid scientific rebuttal > coming from the Bad Astronomers regarding the celestial poles observational > argument. It seems that no one is able to tell us just how it is that the > World aligns itself with both the north and south celestial poles as it > "orbits the Sun." > > > > As I mentioned on the website, this idea is quite closely tied in with > Tycho Brahe's reasoning about stellar parallax. --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!