Neville J I've been on about this off and on for 18 months. Every time I raised the matter with you, you simply fobbed me off with an argument which is basically an articulation of your 'Ecliptic Poles' video, namely -- 'The ecliptic poles simply rotate as part of the background stars' to which I have consistently replied 'But you have your camera pointed in the wrong direction' to which you have consistently replied with silence. The latest in this back-and-forth is my illustration 'Elmendorf Image 1.jpg' which directed your attention once again to the fact that you keep looking in the wrong direction which you seem determined not to address. Referring to this as '...a fairly minor point ...' is to trivialise what is in fact the pivotal point as this 'accidental action' is just an illustration of that same thinking. There is more to come on this subject in this thread. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 1 November, 2007 3:26:31 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary) Paul, Well, if I'm telling you what you already told me, which in turn must be what I had already told you, then are we not agreed? If so, then why did you bother to pick up the fairly minor point about the stars having moved with the paper, since it would be clear that a second axis amongst the same stars was being highlighted by myself? Neville www.GeocentricUniverse.com -----Original Message----- From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:18:34 +0000 (GMT) Neville J Basically you are telling me what I had already told you in Fig 2 -- is that not so? Paul D. National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/