Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.

FreeLists : [geocentrism] Re: Virtual/created reality?
From: "Dr. Neville Jones"
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Virtualcreated-reality,2

the two points that I originally made:

1. That capsules could only be smashed against the Moon when launched as they were;
2. That NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars were moving?

Before giving my answer, briefly, I will say that the point was answered by others on the list in such a way as to make it less than necessary to choose between Geocentrism and believing the story as if mutually exclusive:

• Answer by Robert Bennett (PhD too, I believe)
  http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/navigation-to-the-moon,2
• Answer by Philip, whoever he may be
  http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Shooting-the-moon,1

Here are now my own answers to the points

"1. That capsules could only be smashed against the Moon when launched as they were;"

Answered by Robert Bennett, retrorockets were able to slow down the movement.

"2. That NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars were moving?"

If I am correct about the aether, the rockets (once escaping the big pull of gravitation of Earth, supposing that is how "gravity" works, and once escaping the friction in the atmosphere where movement is slowed down by static Earth) would be moving in spirals - upward/outward as per momentum of launch and at same time along with aether.

And aether would be moving along with stars. Net effect: rocket would not be moving in relation to stars and stars not in relation to rocket.

Another side of this is Geostationary satellites having an Eastward momentum in a Westward moving aether. As I detailed in a letter exchange with Tom Trinko.

So, therefore there is no actual need for a Geocentric to discredit NASA. That said, some who have done research have also found some.

Reality Reviewed : Grissom, Chaffee and White researched by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Grissom.htm

And my own contacts with NASA (per email and per combox) have not really convinced me they are the "honest" ideal of objective scientists. You know, answering inquiries, even if answer given might discredit (or be misconstrued as discrediting) their own scientific theories and all that.

In fact, this includes my experience of communicating with Carl F. Hostetter, a Tolkien fan, who would normally be interested in Geocentrism. You know that letter (quoted in a page "on top of" this blog, i e you reach it by clicking one of the buttons between uppermost blogpost and the title space) where The Professor thought a global but static earth was easier to imagine "to his fancy, if not to his reason" than a flat earthed world. Or the part of Silmarillion where Sun and Moon get angelic movers. Quite in concordance with standard Scholastic cosmology, even if the scholastics did not accept any thousands of years of "treeshine" between first moment of creation and the Fourth Day with its creation of Sun and Moon. But that is of course where Tolkien's love of mythology comes into the picture. And he made his own one very attractive.

You see, on FB, Carl F. Hostetter lists NASA as his employer.

That might - if true - make him a bit more prone to be averse towards Geocentrics than logic and other parts of reason warrant.

And of course, scientists are not machines. In fact this is a reason why those concerned with other minds "malfuncioning" should not be credited as scientific, but that is beside this immediate issue. Even if I did not at all present my Geocentric material as an attack on the Moon Landing, a NASA employee who had gone through some screenings about Geocentrics and Moon Landing deniers (after Neville Jones raised his point) might feel, through a game of association, insulted by even Geocentrics. If he believed Neville's material about Grissom, he would feel an urge to quit NASA. If he did not, he would feel irritation at Neville. If he knew it was true but was posing (I am not saying this is the case, of course, I do not know if the failed flight was accident or murder), he would of course pose as much as possible as not believing the case. And, by a slip, either in his honest or in his possibly not quite honest rejection of Neville Jones, he would include Geocentrics in general in that rejection.

Other NASA people - is Phil Plait one of them? He is actually the guy whom I rather think of as deliberately avoiding the issue after a debate with me that took some weeks - would often enough be [Classic Western] Atheists. To them, angelic movers of Sun, Moon, Mars and Venus, are a big no-no, exactly as much as a similtaneous supernatural creation of these on Day Four.

But the big challenge of Moon landing to a Geocentric is survival on a Moon that moves around us at high speed. If it happened, of course it proves, if not completely Newtonian physics, at least a limited aspect of them, that things fall to the ground because of gravity and that six feet from the surface of the moon, the head of a man on the moon would experience virtually none from Earth but immensely more from the Moon. If it happed it also proves the possibility of the Heliocentric explanatyion of our sensation of stilness. Neil and the rest (if they spoke truly) experienced the Moon as being still under their feet on the ground, much as we all experience Earth as still under ours on the ground. However, neither proves Geocentrism wrong, the first would prove an Aristotelian proposition either wrong or fraught with exceptions, the latter does not prove that the obvious explanation while being applicable to us on Earth must also be applied as the true one to us on Earth. The real big challenge is the speed, and I have previously calculated that in a Geocentric universe the men landing on the Moon would temporarily be experiencing a speed if anything lower than the total speed of Earth through space. I calculated for the speed of "daily rotation" plus "yearly orbit", it was the same speed as that of Moon in a Gecentric universe. And there the gravity is less high, about one sixth, I have gathered.

So, there is no physical impossibility in the Moon landing, even if Geocentrism is right.

But there is no physical impossibility in faking it either. When I see pictures purportedly from Moon with a pyramid reflection in the face shield, I am not saying "wow, are there pyramids on the Moon, is this leaked and did NASA want to silence this?" I am rather saying: were the Moon landing pictures faked where there are Pyramids, i e in the Egyptian desert?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Memory of St Paul and
St Ostian of Viviers
30-VI-2014