Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 85485

If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night.

Do you see what I see? I see all the visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. In other words, I see all the stars which these time exposures have recorded actually going around that navigational star that God put there for us in the Northern Hemisphere. Remember: the first two pictures are eight hour exposures. Again, look closely and you can see the third of a circle in the center and in the next star trail or so. This means that each star circles in one 24 hour day (i.e., 23 hours and 56 minutes). (The same thing is captured in circumpolar photos taken in the Southern Hemisphere....)

You see that too, you say, but you "know" that this is really an illusion caused by the Earth rotating West to East ccw every 24 hours. Right? The stars are really not going around the Earth, you want to tell me (as if talking to a seven year old child). It just looks like they are moving because the Earth is rotating around its polar axis, and that rotation gives us the illusion that the stars are actually going around... as any fourth grader will explain to you. If you doubt that is what is really happening, just read under the pictures, for Pete’s sake! Most will tell you the same thing, and the others don’t bother because practically every literate person in the world knows that this is what is happening! mumble, mumble....

Well (...that failed attempt at levity aside), this universally accepted explanation for this phenomena that we can watch with our own eyes and record on our own film is always the same. That is to say, we are assured that what we see and record with our cameras is an illusion caused by the Earth rotating on an axis in an East to West direction at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH.

This universally accepted "explanation" is pure assumption! It is an "explanation" without the first piece of indisputable evidence to support it...and it is in denial of the plentiful evidence that rejects it!

The untouched photos themselves plainly and precisely "explain" what happens to the stars every 23 hours and 56 minutes, namely: They go around a stationary Earth! What we’ve all been taught is an "explanation" is--in fact--just one of seven interdependent assumptions which all interact to uphold the moving Earth mythology.

Marshall Hall, Fixed Earth 79 Comments [1/5/2012 4:23:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 154
Submitted By: shykid
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
Bryan729

All that just to tell us he flunked science.

1/5/2012 4:31:57 AM

TZL

*boggles*
If this isn't a fake then perhaps the hypothesis that language is an innate skill which has been genetically organised in the brain meaning any moron can use it may actually be accurate.

A small experiment for Marshall Hall:
Wait until it's dark, then fix a black blob to your ceiling about a foot away from your lightbulb. Turn the light on, stand directly under the black blob, tilt your head up and stare at it and rotate yourself. Whilst spinning on it, the light will draw a circle on your retina. This doesn't mean the room itself is rotating: only you are. The same thing happens on a much more photogenic scale when these wonderful time-lapse images are created.

1/5/2012 4:51:35 AM

Amadan

I'd love to hear the biblical explanation of the Coriolis effect.

There is one, isn't there?

1/5/2012 4:52:08 AM

Paradoxical

I want this to be a poe. I want so very much for this to be a poe. But somehow, I doubt it is.

1/5/2012 4:52:35 AM

Table Rock

The photos are just observations. They don't "explain" anything. Scientist provide explanations through multiple experiments using the scientific method. They don't just pick the explantion they like and claim it as truth.

It's the same with ufo sightings. Someone sees something in the sky and thinks, "I don't know what that is so it must be an alien spaceship." Scientists say, "I don't know what that is. Let's find out."

1/5/2012 5:07:26 AM

Percy Q. Shunn


1/5/2012 5:13:26 AM

Prager

DUMB DUMB DUMB

1/5/2012 5:44:34 AM



checkmate

the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. ... They go around a stationary Earth!

This is wrong.

The skies do not go around the North Star.

They go around me.

I am the center of the Universe.

I am always stationary, everything else moves relative to me.

So there!

No?

1/5/2012 5:44:38 AM





This is you being wrong.

1/5/2012 5:56:02 AM

Keefus

It's instructive to read further on Mr Hall's website. Apparently the overtly secular & scientific theories of the Universe are actually based on 'Kabbalistic' and 'Pharisee' scriptures.

Yep, it's them Jews wot dun it.

1/5/2012 6:13:19 AM



the Earth rotating on an axis in an East to West direction at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH.

Yeah, well, if the stars were actually moving around a stationary Earth, their linear velocity would be greater than the speed of light which, as far as we know, is an impossibility.

You fail.

1/5/2012 6:13:53 AM



And there was me thinking that Galileo had this shit nailed centuries ago.

I'd like to hear his explanation for the moons of Jupiter, or the rings of Saturn (as to the latter, I wonder if it'd have anything to do with what the Church said about it at the time: "It must be Jesus' foreskin")

1/5/2012 6:29:52 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

OK, Prof. Knowitall, now explain what causes the seasons.

1/5/2012 6:33:36 AM

rubber chicken

Please explain the Foucault pendulum

1/5/2012 7:11:57 AM

Doubting Thomas

If the stars really do rotate around the earth, the ones which are really far out there have to be traveling at billions upon billions times the speed of light.

So if you apply Occam's Razor, which makes more sense: a stationary earth with the entire universe rotating around it at incomprehensibly astronomical speeds, or a moving earth which rotates and orbits the sun just like every other planet in our solar system?

1/5/2012 7:22:55 AM

demodocos

"This universally accepted "explanation" is pure assumption! It is an "explanation" without the first piece of indisputable evidence to support it...and it is in denial of the plentiful evidence that rejects it!

The untouched photos themselves plainly and precisely "explain" what happens to the stars every 23 hours and 56 minutes, namely: They go around a stationary Earth! What we’ve all been taught is an "explanation" is--in fact--just one of seven interdependent assumptions which all interact to uphold the moving Earth mythology."


Well, let's see...

We can measure the distance to other stars with triangulation, the star system closest to Sol is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.24 light years away. So according to Marshall Hall, Alpha Centauri would have to travel (2*4.24)*PI= 26.64 light years per day or about 9700 times faster than light - and that's just the closest star system, our galaxy alone has a diameter of 100,000 light years.

Marshall's stupidity is mind-boggling.

1/5/2012 7:27:28 AM

demodocos

Doubting Thomas: "If the stars really do rotate around the earth, the ones which are really far out there have to be traveling at billions upon billions times the speed of light.

So if you apply Occam's Razor, which makes more sense: a stationary earth with the entire universe rotating around it at incomprehensibly astronomical speeds, or a moving earth which rotates and orbits the sun just like every other planet in our solar system?"


Also think of the size of the gravity well that would be necessary to keep those stars from flying off in all directions. It requires a star the size of the Sun to keep Jupiter in its orbit - if Earth would really be at the center of the universe, gravity would have to be so high, it would collapse into a black hole.

1/5/2012 7:33:23 AM

dionysus

Which is why NASA uses the geocentric model when calculating their space probe launches. Oh wait, they don't. My mistake.

1/5/2012 7:38:50 AM

D Laurier

... And the seasonal procession of stars?
You need to explain why the stars of the winter sky are different than the stars of the summer sky.
You need to explain stellar pharalax. (thats the appearant shift in a star's relative position over the course of a year... which opens a HUGE can of worms for you)
You will also need to explain the spring and autumn equinox, and the summer and winter solistice.

1/5/2012 7:40:20 AM

Joe Mama

it is in denial of the plentiful evidence that rejects it!

Let me guess... this is also the same "plentiful evidence" which also proves that God exists?

1/5/2012 7:47:43 AM

Raised by Horses

Okay, professor. Let's see that "plentiful evidence" of yours.

What's that, you say? Your dog ate it? Well, isn't that a shame.

1/5/2012 7:58:26 AM

Philbert McAdamia

you want to tell me (as if talking to a seven year old child).

Mmm, four and a half, maybe five.

1/5/2012 7:59:47 AM



Sometimes, Marshall, you just have to listen to what the smart people tell you so you don't embarrass yourself like this.

1/5/2012 8:09:11 AM

Darwin

It's not possible to write the word STUPID large enough to do justice to this.

1/5/2012 8:26:42 AM

WWWWolf

What you have there is a single set of observations that can be explained in two ways: Either the Earth rotates, or the rest of the universe rotates while the Earth stays still.

And that's right, you can pick either of those explanations as plausible possibilities... until you make further observations that either prove or refute those possibilities.

Scientific theories are based on logical conclusions based on the results of a series of experiments for this reason. If you do a long-exposure photo of circumpolar stars, and conclude that either of those outcomes is possible, people would say that it's not a very thorough piece of research. They'd demand you to look at those possibilities and see if you can find answers to them. You can't stop and say "it's either of those possibilities, and I've done all I can as a scientist, and this satisfies everyone's scientific curiosity from this day hence". No.

Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that people have done a lot of experiments that make the stationary-Earth model look very, very implausible. Yes, even practical experiments of gigantic and expensive scale, like, I don't know - sending various spacecrafts to other worlds, all working out perfectly fine with the conventionally assumed model.

1/5/2012 8:37:55 AM
1 2 3 4