[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:37:43 +1000
sorry, Mike, I thought you wanted me to be your launch into them.. I hoped by
this time they would have opend the door by now.. I see nothing for you to be
ashamed of in this particular message. I will certainly now fwd your protest
with this...
And Neville, what is the problem? Why is Mike still banned? He doesn't use foul
language like I do.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: Philip
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
I'd appreciate, Phil, if you don't post my comments with your reply on a
public forum which I cannot post to. To be fair you should now post my
response.
Neville claimed to PROVE that CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE and GEOCENTRISM were
incompatible. I simply pointed out that his analysis was invalid. I
made no mention of my belief about what is or is not true. You can
insult me all you like, it doesn't change the fact that Neville Jones
misrepresents CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE in that paper by claiming that
conventional science would admit a Newtonian analysis in a geostationary
frame.
Regards,
Mike.
> To Mikes criticism below of Neville's approach I respond.
>
> Mike you are correct , in your standard orbital mechanics.. I sort of
> thought of it.. But my lateral mind, will look for alternatives., simply
> because I have a more compulsive reason for doing so.
>
> Even though you may not be prepared to look for an alternative physical
> reason to explain the physical observations that support conventional
> explanations of them, surely you cannot deny us, if you have the true
> open mind of the scientist, the right to think laterally; to seek such
> an alternative. The proper way to refute our "fantasies" if you will, is
> to follow the line of approach that I posted in questioning Roberts
> theory of the plenum, (or my aether) where in I asked him to explain
> what would happen with a polar orbit.
>
> You haveto admit, that NO ONE has launched a polar orbit from the
> geographical pole, which just might prove something.which an equatorial
> launch cannot.
>
> Can you not recognise that your stubborn adhesion to scientific
> convention is just as stubborn as The Biblical geocentrists? I expect
> more from an avowed athiest. When I was there, or at least a doubter, I
> just loved Startreks transporter "Beam me up Scottie"
>
> You will never ever invent a matter transporter, with your attitude, but
> someone else, another Faraday might. Likewise, you will die, never
> knowing if maybe perhaps the Bible was right, and that you had a
> spiritual soul, and that there was a God.. after all.. Maybe too late
> then, if you were not a perfect person in every other respect.
>
> Philip.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mike <mailto:mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 21, 2005 11:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
> Hi Philip,
>
> Philip wrote:
> > More to you later, as I have worked out without NASA's info your
> > logical conclusions re the easterly launch of appollo, annd accept
> > that in the Geocentric sense, using their newtonian mechanics of
> > motion, there is a problem. This is why I posed the alternative
> > effects of the plenum (aether) simply because I do believe we went
> > there.
>
> "Thier" Newtonian mechanics is not even approximately applicable in the
> geostationary frame for anything except problems down here on earth.
> Indeed, Neville could have equally shown that the moon could not
> maintain its current orbit given that it is moving at over 60,000mph.
> All he has demonstrated is that his interpretation of the bible and his
> incorrect application of conventional science cannot be reconciled. He
> has shown nothing about actual conventional science.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
Other related posts:
